AHC: Russian Uberwank

I remember there were a lot of deserters in Red Army. Think most of those who were caught were simply returned to their units by NKVD and not sent to straf battalions or shot or anything like that. There were some interesting things and cases of people escaping from the front through cordons and whatnot a lot.
You DO have one hell of a memory considering that you must be 80 years old to witness WWII. :)
(* Sorry, it was intended as a joke.)

There was a great mess in 1941 and some deserters might got lucky when whole battalions were wondering around.
But usually deserters were shot dead by a firing squad. Kind of routine procedure...

'Screwed up' is a much nicer way and less insulting than 'fucked up'. It's more applicable as a polite term and a 'weakened' term. Also some people in US tend to use 'strong' curse words like 'fuck' in casual terms more than some other cultures without it being meant as insulting.
Oh, it's too complicated for me. :confused:
Do you mean that if I tell you "go and screw yourself" it would be more applicable and more polite than saying "go and fuck yourself"?
The meaning stays the same anyway...


I googled for the world "screwed up" on the Internet and found out that I am not the only one who has problems with understanding this expression. And to my surprise most of these guys are having English as their first language (Americans mostly). And they wonder something like that: "May I use this expression in a conversation with my grandma?".

One thing for sure:
- as for me personally I would never(!) use this expression because for some people it has no sexual connotation whatsoever but for other people it DOES have heavy sexual connotations.

So using this "screwed up" expression :D you risk to insult someone.
 
Last edited:
You DO have one hell of a memory considering that you must be 80 years old to witness WWII. :)
(* Sorry, it was intended as a joke.)

Enjoy :p

Back-In-My-Day.gif


Lol. I meant some of the cases in 1944-45. Anthony Beevor's 'the fall of Berlin 1945' mentions all sorts of interesting things like people shooting themselves to get off of duty and groups of deserters, civilians of both german/Russian/etc ethnicity wandering past NKVD units and past the front. I dunno what they were doing and I think its not reported that they were sent to the worst types of GULAG. But I could be wrong and there's another book(s) on 'great patriotic war' (absolute war: soviet Russia in the second world war' that I'll read soon (book is right by me now!).

What is your opinion on soviet/Russian history books written by British people?

There was a great mess in 1941 and some deserters might got lucky when whole battalions were wondering around.
But usually deserters were shot dead by a firing squad. Kind of routine procedure...

I remember there were cases where that was per sued overzealously on some rendering soldiers looking for their units. Reforming militarize in wars do stupid things at times.

Oh, it's too complicated for me. :confused:
Do you mean that if I tell you "go and screw yourself" it would be more applicable and more polite than saying "go and fuck yourself"?
The meaning stays the same anyway...

Yes. It has the same meaning but 'fuck' is used in a more intense manner than 'screw'. It is more polite to say 'go screw yourself' in English language than 'go fuck yourself"

It's like how in Russian language there is a certain way you can use Russian vocabulary to curse in a 'strong' manner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mat_(Russian_profanity)

I googled for the world "screwed up" on the Internet and found out that I am not the only one who has problems with understanding this expression. And to my surprise most of these guys are having English as their first language (Americans mostly). And they wonder something like that: "May I use this expression in a conversation with my grandma?".

Screwed up is more acceptable among people younger and in business situations I guess. Telling your grandmother that 'the washing machine is screwed up' is in my opinion not exactly insulting.

I think the term 'to screw' when used in a sexual manner comes from the fact that screws are a type of nail used to hold wood and other things together in the sense of a house or other construction. Due to that people used it as shorthand/euphemism for sex due to the whole metaphor/similarity of putting a screw into wood and putting a penis in a vagina. Hence it still being more 'mild' and 'polite' than saying 'fuck'.

Also just because someone can speak English decently does not mean they know the origin term for the words and whatnot. There are plenty of people who do not look into the historical origins of words and simply speak because other people speak similarly without looking up definitions (I know that all humans learn language that way)
One thing for sure:
- as for me personally I would never(!) use this expression because for some people it has no sexual connotation whatsoever but for other people it DOES have heavy sexual connotations.

So using this "screwed up" expression :D you risk to insult someone.

Oh it has sexual connotations. It has morphed to mean 'messed up'. In the english language you can use sexual terms to describe how not functioning things are. Ie saying 'fucked up' for an out or order/very damaged machine or hardware, 'sodomized' (more polite) or 'ass-raped' (not polite) for being defeated in a battle or tournament extremely.

Also remember in USA (excepting the former confederate states and some reagons by the former confederacy, and the zone of Mormon settlement in Utah and around Utah) especially among young people cursing is pretty common-place and not exactly 'taboo'. Though not exactly done around say, parents a lot.
 
I meant some of the cases in 1944-45. Anthony Beevor's 'the fall of Berlin 1945' mentions all sorts of interesting things like people shooting themselves to get off of duty and groups of deserters, civilians of both german/Russian/etc ethnicity wandering past NKVD units and past the front. I dunno what they were doing and I think its not reported that they were gulag'd. But I could be wrong and there's another book(s) on 'great patriotic war' (absolute war: soviet Russia in the second world war' that I'll read soon (book is right by me now!). What is your opinion on soviet/Russian history books written by British people.
People shooting themselves to get off of duty risked to be shot by a firing squad as well.
I do not know Anthony Beevor but I may presume that 1) he might misunderstood some usual front-line mess like soldiers looking for their units for mass desertion 2) he might see something out of context or just lied to make a book more interesting and better sold 3) he was lucky to see one of the rare cases of real desertion in mass in the Soviet Army in 1945 (but I am afraid if it was the case - most of the deserters were punished very severely afterwards - he just did not see it)
As for 'soviet/Russian history books written by British people' - it's the same as with 'soviet/Russian history books written by Russian people'. I mean it depends. Some of them are very good, some are very bad.

It's like how in Russian language there is a certain way you can use Russian vocabulary to curse in a 'strong' manner.
Russian cursing and American cursing are two VERY different things.

That's the first thing I tell my English-speaking friends who try to use some Russian words while in Russia:
- "Do not ever under any circumstances use 'Russian mat' (curse).
In best case you will look very silly and confuse people around you.
In worst case you might get a smack in the face."
 
Last edited:

MSZ

Banned
Where does this spring from? Sazonov was talking about an ethnographic boundary in Germany minus the Slavic parts of East Prussia, which he felt had more symbolic value for Germany than they would ever have practical value for Russia; his opponents, the generals, differed mainly in wanting Prussia up to the Vistula. Who in government circles, rather than the newspaper-postcard-speculative-map-trade, was talking about the 1945 border?

Sazanov suggested at least two plans, one of which did have a semi-autonomous/independent Poland of to the Oder-Neisse. And he did have some influence on the Tzar, as well as being a acceptable partner for the western powers (he managedto make it to the Versailles Conference). So I don't consider his plans to be impossible. Plus, while most of what Nicholas II said about Russia's war aims was propaganda and no consistent program was established, pan-slavism was something of a general principle of Russia's foreign policy, so annexing slavic territories where slavs live (or lived) seem propable. The Galicia, Posen, Pomeralia were occasionally called "Austrian Poland" and "German Poland", so with Russia already having the Kingdom of Poland "reunification" would be almost certain. Upper Silesia and Austrian Silesia would be beneficial for economic reasons. East Prussia would be great symbol of "Slavic victory" against the Germans. Would Oder-Neisse be really that much far-fetched if OTL Poland managed to getas much as it did?

In what way, precisely, was my great-great-great-X-grandfather the Orcadian crofter responsible for the Indian famines?

What did he do? And how did he benefit from it?


Again we speak about these imagined entities states as if they were people and judged according to people's standards. It was the actions of small circles of rulers, some of whom were responsible to some of their subjects and some of whom were not, that brought the world to war.

I think you are too willing to seperate the guilt of "the State" (and associate it only with the leadership of the said State) and the guilt of the people of that State. After all, those orders and laws didn't execute themselves, they had to be executed by followers - by people who had the option of not following them. If that Popov who marched into Lvov in 1939 shot a civilian in the street and took his watch, who is responsible for that civilians death? Stalin didn't order that particular killing. Popov's commanding officer didn't either. Popov did it himself, because he knew there wouldn't be any consequences for him doing that, but he would get a watch. I'd blame him. And I would put the guilt of the population which not only accepts "agression" and "murder", but knowingly benefits from them -
if Ivanovs family gets to eat the potatos Polakowski grew for himself, but got killed for them by Ivanov, then they would be accesories.


No, but then I have a scrupulous definition of 'alliance', which is more than you can say for some people. Certainly it was the intention of many senior Britons to chuck the small eastern European countries over the side.

If two countries move their armies in a hostile manner into another third country, they have an alliance.


Well, a great many people in Great Britain predicted it. But anyway, the terms you're using are misleading. Of course the Soviets thought there was going to be a war. They were undertaking to make sure it wasn't - immediately - with them.

So thet were starting a war... so that they wouldn't have a war. Kind of a contradiction.


British and Soviet actions were both motivated by cold self-interest. They were both badly mistaken. What is the crucial difference?

Use of force would be the crucial one.

They had been repeatedly trying to take that option, in its viable and realistic form, by assembling anti-Nazi coalitions. Nothing came of it.

Examples of doing that in good faith? I know that Stalin was very eager to find an excuse to move the Red Army into other countries, I haven't heard of anti-Nazi coalitions being attempted to be established by the Soviet Union. Unless proclamations of the KPSU and the Comintern are to be taken into account.


To choose not to get conscripted is to choose to commit fraud or go on the run. Plenty of people in all countries do it, but it's still not exactly a trivial decision.

No, its not. But it is an option.
 
Sazanov suggested at least two plans, one of which did have a semi-autonomous/independent Poland of to the Oder-Neisse. And he did have some influence on the Tzar, as well as being a acceptable partner for the western powers (he managedto make it to the Versailles Conference). So I don't consider his plans to be impossible.

Source on this? I've never seen it mentioned in several articles on the subject. Since Sazonov was the moderate and worried about alienating Germany, it seems curious.

Plus, while most of what Nicholas II said about Russia's war aims was propaganda and no consistent program was established, pan-slavism was something of a general principle of Russia's foreign policy, so annexing slavic territories where slavs live (or lived) seem propable. The Galicia, Posen, Pomeralia were occasionally called "Austrian Poland" and "German Poland", so with Russia already having the Kingdom of Poland "reunification" would be almost certain. Upper Silesia and Austrian Silesia would be beneficial for economic reasons.

Isn't this all what I said? (Except that Sazonov was specifically against giving Poland a corridor in order to increase its economic dependence on the Russian system.)

East Prussia would be great symbol of "Slavic victory" against the Germans.

East Prussia was indeed a prize for the generals, who were also broadly in favour of Polish autonomy for military reasons, although as I've explained Sazonov didn't want it.

Would Oder-Neisse be really that much far-fetched if OTL Poland managed to getas much as it did?

It's several substantial areas beyond the extreme claim I've seen referred to in a source, and that claim was itself controversial. The circumstances were obviously very different from those of 1945.

What did he do?

He sowed oats and then harvested them, mostly. That's the point. He represents that mythical creature, the Average Briton.

And how did he benefit from it?

Well, we won the war.

I think you are too willing to seperate the guilt of "the State" (and associate it only with the leadership of the said State) and the guilt of the people of that State. After all, those orders and laws didn't execute themselves, they had to be executed by followers - by people who had the option of not following them. If that Popov who marched into Lvov in 1939 shot a civilian in the street and took his watch, who is responsible for that civilians death? Stalin didn't order that particular killing. Popov's commanding officer didn't either. Popov did it himself, because he knew there wouldn't be any consequences for him doing that, but he would get a watch. I'd blame him.

Thing is, we're not talking about random abuse of power (which is a universal phenomenon) but about precisely the sort of thing that requires sytematic abuse of power by the rulers. I believe this discussion started with national foreign policies, which genuinely are done by quite small circles of men at the highest level in the state and beyond the control of the mass of people, even in a democracy.

And I would put the guilt of the population which not only accepts "agression" and "murder", but knowingly benefits from them -
if Ivanovs family gets to eat the potatos Polakowski grew for himself, but got killed for them by Ivanov, then they would be accesories.

This is contrary to actual principles of justice: if this was all done in one country in peacetime, you can't persecute somebody for happening to be related to a murderer. That's a dangerous and stupid notion.

If two countries move their armies in a hostile manner into another third country, they have an alliance.

So after the union of the Galician and Dniepr Ukrainian republics, Poland and the USSR were briefly allies? That is an absurdly broad definition.

So thet were starting a war... so that they wouldn't have a war. Kind of a contradiction.

Oh for heaven's sake. Ek-hem. The USSR signed an agreement with Germany to encourage it to make war with the Entente powers and Poland in order to buy time in which it would not make war with the USSR. As part of this, the Soviets carried small operations against Poland and Romania, and what turned out to be larger operations than they'd bargained for against Finland; but these measures were all done without waging war on either the Entente or the Germans and they even did their best to avoid an official state of war with Poland.

Use of force would be the crucial one.

Britain was using implicit force to hold down a quarter of the world: we were getting tired of it, but there it was. The international order of the time was not founded on any just principle.

Examples of doing that in good faith? I know that Stalin was very eager to find an excuse to move the Red Army into other countries, I haven't heard of anti-Nazi coalitions being attempted to be established by the Soviet Union. Unless proclamations of the KPSU and the Comintern are to be taken into account.

Over Munich and then in 1939 in the 'tripartite negotiations'. There's some stuff on Wikipedia, actually.

No, its not. But it is an option.

Of course, to avoid resisting the Germans for some sort of principled reason rather than plain old understandable mortal terror was more-or-less a big 'exterminate me' sign as of 1941.
 

MSZ

Banned
Source on this? I've never seen it mentioned in several articles on the subject. Since Sazonov was the moderate and worried about alienating Germany, it seems curious.


Isn't this all what I said? (Except that Sazonov was specifically against giving Poland a corridor in order to increase its economic dependence on the Russian system.)


East Prussia was indeed a prize for the generals, who were also broadly in favour of Polish autonomy for military reasons, although as I've explained Sazonov didn't want it.


It's several substantial areas beyond the extreme claim I've seen referred to in a source, and that claim was itself controversial. The circumstances were obviously very different from those of 1945.

Sazonov has made quite a few "Plans" regarding Russia's war aims and presented them to various officials -in the Tzarist Court,the Russian General Staff, members of the Duma, foreign diplomats,etc. The Oder-Neisse one was mentioned by Aleksander Achmatowicz - Sazonov presented in Warsaw 1915 to a number of military leaders and polish politicians. Of course none of his plans was officially accepted by the Tzar so there can be no definite list of "Russia's War Aims". However, all of the Great Powers started out the war with somewhat limited goals which grew in size with time and war casualties. France started out with claims on Alsace-Lorraine, ended of demanding a breakup of Germany and a border on the Rhein. Germany started with the Septemberprogram, ended up with Brest-Litovsk. So assuming that Russia started out with demands on Austrian and German Poland, and would do better in the war, its demands would grow bigger as well, After all, who would deny it? France would be more than happy about it, Britain never refused to grant Russia a carte blanche in East and Central Europe until the Bolshevik Revolution. And if Germany was to experience an upheaval like the one in 1918-1919, I have doubts the Reichswehr could stop Russia as well.

On another note - its interesting what you write about Sazonov. From my knowledge, he didn't have any particular friendly sentiments towards Germany (nor hostile) and was more of a centrist than a conservative - who were germanophiliac (like the Tzarina) and who were the ones who forced him out of office. Most of the plans he proposed, when they were formed in detail, had Pomeralia becoming part of Poland - not remaining with Germany like the conservatives wanted, their goal being the preservation of trade relations with Germany after the war. When did he specifically reject annexing Pomeralia for Poland?


He sowed oats and then harvested them, mostly. That's the point. He represents that mythical creature, the Average Briton.

Well, we won the war.

If he had no part in the war and didn't get a penny from it, he wasn't guilty of anything.


Thing is, we're not talking about random abuse of power (which is a universal phenomenon) but about precisely the sort of thing that requires sytematic abuse of power by the rulers. I believe this discussion started with national foreign policies, which genuinely are done by quite small circles of men at the highest level in the state and beyond the control of the mass of people, even in a democracy.

And again you are seperating "state guilt" with "individual guilt". Foreign policy is most often conducted by a small group yes - but executed by the masses when it comes to things like war. So hiding behind the coat of arms of a country and conducting criminal activity doesn't reduce the guilt of the individual. It's like claiming average criminal Joe working for a gang can't be found guilty for assaulting Granny Smith, because he did it for the group - and then only shared the spoils.

This is contrary to actual principles of justice: if this was all done in one country in peacetime, you can't persecute somebody for happening to be related to a murderer. That's a dangerous and stupid notion.

I guess it depends on your belief of what is just. I don't know about the UK, but many countries find the beneficiaries of criminal activity who knew that the source of their benefits comes from illegal activity are considered to be co-responsible.


So after the union of the Galician and Dniepr Ukrainian republics, Poland and the USSR were briefly allies? That is an absurdly broad definition.

I could argue about whether these republics were states, or were recognized, or whether there was a union but it certainly didn't matter for the Ukrainians. For them, they were the target of a Polish, Soviet, Whites even - alliance. And objectively such an alliance did exist for a moment - though circumstances where different there.


Oh for heaven's sake. Ek-hem. The USSR signed an agreement with Germany to encourage it to make war with the Entente powers and Poland in order to buy time in which it would not make war with the USSR. As part of this, the Soviets carried small operations against Poland and Romania, and what turned out to be larger operations than they'd bargained for against Finland; but these measures were all done without waging war on either the Entente or the Germans and they even did their best to avoid an official state of war with Poland.

That is your belief? You do know that the Soviet Union upon its formation officially declared its intent on annexing the rest of the world into one Global Social Soviet Union. So it was hardly looking for avoiding a war - it sought it. Has the thought that without an alliance with the Soviet Union Hitler would not have invaded Poland - thus preventing the war - crossed your mind? Soviet history is quite clear that it wasn't a land of peace loving pacifists.


Britain was using implicit force to hold down a quarter of the world: we were getting tired of it, but there it was. The international order of the time was not founded on any just principle.


I'd say principles were there, they just weren't obeyed. But are you again implying that the British Empire was just as bad as the Soviet Union because it had troops stationed all over the world? I'd say the average Estonian would love for his country to be in a Canada-like situation between 1940-1990.

Over Munich and then in 1939 in the 'tripartite negotiations'. There's some stuff on Wikipedia, actually.

Funny thatyou mention those - I did read about them and in neither case did the Soviet Union even try to start negotiating the matter with either Poland and Romania - rather demanding that France and Britain force the two into allowing troop passage for Red Army troops. This was quite suspicious and both the Poles and Romanians rightly assumed that any "liberation army" would turn into an "occupation army" right after the war. History proved them right. So those attempts hardly had the goal of being anti-nazi - more like trditional attepts at increasing its empire.


Of course, to avoid resisting the Germans for some sort of principled reason rather than plain old understandable mortal terror was more-or-less a big 'exterminate me' sign as of 1941.

Which would you rather be? The executioner, the executed, or an emigrant?
 
Sazonov has made quite a few "Plans" regarding Russia's war aims and presented them to various officials -in the Tzarist Court,the Russian General Staff, members of the Duma, foreign diplomats,etc. The Oder-Neisse one was mentioned by Aleksander Achmatowicz - Sazonov presented in Warsaw 1915 to a number of military leaders and polish politicians. Of course none of his plans was officially accepted by the Tzar so there can be no definite list of "Russia's War Aims". However, all of the Great Powers started out the war with somewhat limited goals which grew in size with time and war casualties. France started out with claims on Alsace-Lorraine, ended of demanding a breakup of Germany and a border on the Rhein. Germany started with the Septemberprogram, ended up with Brest-Litovsk. So assuming that Russia started out with demands on Austrian and German Poland, and would do better in the war, its demands would grow bigger as well, After all, who would deny it? France would be more than happy about it, Britain never refused to grant Russia a carte blanche in East and Central Europe until the Bolshevik Revolution. And if Germany was to experience an upheaval like the one in 1918-1919, I have doubts the Reichswehr could stop Russia as well.

I'll take your word for it, although 'war aims must get larger' is simplification. France was reacting to the devastation of the war by seeking to prevent it ever recurring, and Germany was in part haphazardly embarking on an imperial programme of the type certain Germans had long been sketching and in part stumbling into eastern Europe without being sure what to do; but German demands in the west were already pretty steep in September and they did not huge larger. And where does Britain fit into this scheme?

The question, then , is whether the Russians have any reason to want these areas. And compared to the complications either of dealing with the population or getting rid of it, what are the benefits?

On another note - its interesting what you write about Sazonov. From my knowledge, he didn't have any particular friendly sentiments towards Germany (nor hostile) and was more of a centrist than a conservative - who were germanophiliac (like the Tzarina) and who were the ones who forced him out of office.

I didn't say Germanophile, I said pragmatic: he didn't want to create a 'Russian Alsace' that would prevent normal relations in the future. Normal is normal.

Most of the plans he proposed, when they were formed in detail, had Pomeralia becoming part of Poland - not remaining with Germany like the conservatives wanted, their goal being the preservation of trade relations with Germany after the war. When did he specifically reject annexing Pomeralia for Poland?

I couldn't give a date: it was referred to in passing by an article I read, so possibly the opinion was actually that of somebody else and I was getting mixed up with East Prussia, which was certainly Sazonov.


If he had no part in the war and didn't get a penny from it, he wasn't guilty of anything.

How dare you! We're Free Kirk on the islands. Everybody's guilty of everything.

Less facetiously, my ancestors did take part in the war as merchant sailors and I suppose they got their pay. They also got a chance to live in an independent Britain committed to being a place worth living in rather than a Nazi colony, which sounds to me like a decent idea. And of course Britain was a great mercantile marine power as a result of several centuries of global brigandage.

So are the tars responsible for the Bengal famine? If so, what could they have done to avoid being responsible? If nothing, what sick kind of justice is this?

And again you are seperating "state guilt" with "individual guilt".

I am ascribing individual guilt where it can be ascribed, or trying. What is the opposite of individual guilt? Collective guilt, which is immoral.

Foreign policy is most often conducted by a small group yes - but executed by the masses when it comes to things like war. So hiding behind the coat of arms of a country and conducting criminal activity doesn't reduce the guilt of the individual.

So what exactly is criminal about the behavior of a tar or of an ordinary Soviet soldier who didn't happen to hypothetically kill somebody's mum?

It's like claiming average criminal Joe working for a gang can't be found guilty for assaulting Granny Smith, because he did it for the group - and then only shared the spoils.

Except that we're talking about real bleedin' life. I mean, the Soviet people didn't 'share the spoils' of anything insofar as 14% of them had been needlessly horribly killed. The average Britain throughout our imperial career was having no fun at all. And so on so forth. And can one equate a person plucked from the slums, sent to India, and fighting for his life against mutineers with somebody who beats up old women back in the slum? Not if we wish to be taken seriously by people who have to inhabit the planet Earth.

Your philosophy appears to be that no division or complexity could possibly exist that could prevent the treatment of the 'gang' as some sort of corporate person.

I guess it depends on your belief of what is just. I don't know about the UK, but many countries find the beneficiaries of criminal activity who knew that the source of their benefits comes from illegal activity are considered to be co-responsible.

It's a crime to buy from a fence, sure, but, and listen carefully now, we are not talking about people in Pilton, we are talking about events which sweep up and deposit millions who never even understood them and the standards of justice applied to individuals in everyday life in a single jurisdiction cannot meaningfully apply.

Everyday we both use something made in China. Are we collaborators with its violent tyrannical regime? By the broadest definition, yes. Do we deserve to be hauled in front of a court as evil folk?

I could argue about whether these republics were states, or were recognized, or whether there was a union

Don't have a flag? Daesna count!

but it certainly didn't matter for the Ukrainians. For them, they were the target of a Polish, Soviet, Whites even - alliance. And objectively such an alliance did exist for a moment - though circumstances where different there.

If it is established that an alliance does not need to imply common or even compatible goals or effective co-operation and can exist in the minds of a particular group of people, sure, I'll work on the bases that 1) the USSR was allied to Nazi Germany and 2) this means not very much.

That is your belief? You do know that the Soviet Union upon its formation officially declared its intent on annexing the rest of the world into one Global Social Soviet Union. So it was hardly looking for avoiding a war - it sought it.

It went on to spend two decades not waging any foreign wars, signing non-aggression pacts with its neighbours, and joining the League of Nations but we mustn't disrupt the narrative.

Has the thought that without an alliance with the Soviet Union Hitler would not have invaded Poland - thus preventing the war - crossed your mind?

The thought has crossed my minds that without a non-aggression pact with the USSR the Nazis would not have invaded Poland, and that without a Munich agreement the Nazis would not have invaded Poland, and that if the Nazis had not been helped into power by the German old guard the Nazis would not have invaded Poland, and that if it wasn't for the man who invented the boot we'd be free of all this trouble.

It does not for some reason cause me to stop believing that if the USSR took an amoral self-interested decision that turned out to be a huge mistake, it was not exactly exceptional.

Soviet history is quite clear that it wasn't a land of peace loving pacifists.

Being rather a land of peace-hating pacifists? :p

I'd say principles were there, they just weren't obeyed. But are you again implying that the British Empire was just as bad as the Soviet Union because it had troops stationed all over the world?

I'm implying that they were both imperial states held together by violence; that says nothing about which was 'worse'.

I'd say the average Estonian would love for his country to be in a Canada-like situation between 1940-1990.

Since the Statute of Westminster Britain had renounced any right to coerce the dominions: they were officially allies and partners.

Try jolly old Uganda.

Funny thatyou mention those - I did read about them and in neither case did the Soviet Union even try to start negotiating the matter with either Poland and Romania - rather demanding that France and Britain force the two into allowing troop passage for Red Army troops. This was quite suspicious and both the Poles and Romanians rightly assumed that any "liberation army" would turn into an "occupation army" right after the war.

Nobody asked the Czechoslovaks, either; but it was the opinion of the great powers that they belonged to a special club with special rights.

History proved them right.

I believe we practice alternate history?

So those attempts hardly had the goal of being anti-nazi - more like trditional attepts at increasing its empire.

Since it was possible to extend power to these place in co-operation with Germany - and probably easier, since Britain and France would certainly have warily watched each Soviet move - why not do that, unless the USSR, for self-interested cold-headed reasons, opposed the Nazis and wished to construct an anti-Nazi coalition? And that is what I was asked about.

Which would you rather be? The executioner, the executed, or an emigrant?

On my bike.
 

MSZ

Banned
I'll take your word for it, although 'war aims must get larger' is simplification. France was reacting to the devastation of the war by seeking to prevent it ever recurring, and Germany was in part haphazardly embarking on an imperial programme of the type certain Germans had long been sketching and in part stumbling into eastern Europe without being sure what to do; but German demands in the west were already pretty steep in September and they did not huge larger. And where does Britain fit into this scheme?

Britain joined the war initially for the goal of re-establishing Belgium and preventing the channel ports from falling into German hands, though by signing an alliance with France it also somewhat supported its war goals. Later Britain's goals got larger: destruction of prussian militarism, obtaining German colonies, democratisation of Germany. Then there were a number of other proclaimed war goals, either directly stated like the Balfour Declaration or Sykes-Picot Agreement or not. Throw in Britain's signing of the Treaty of Bucharest (1916) and the recognition of the Czech and Polish National Comitee (thoughnot the Yugoslav one) and if you don't consider them merly tactical moves Britain wasn't serious about, they ment that it accepted these nations war goals as its own.

The question, then , is whether the Russians have any reason to want these areas. And compared to the complications either of dealing with the population or getting rid of it, what are the benefits?

I didn't say Germanophile, I said pragmatic: he didn't want to create a 'Russian Alsace' that would prevent normal relations in the future. Normal is normal.

As you noted, Sazonov was one of the few high ranking officials who realised that Russia was already to big for its own good and incorporating more minorities would be counter-productive in the long term. Emphasis on "few" however - and that he still considered incorporating some more minorities. You know Russian history pretty darn well, you sure know that it is full of situations were it spent a lot of resources, time, wealth and manpower on gaining control over useless territories simply for the heck of it. Or for prestige. Or for a buffer zone. Or for some mythical belief that "more land" immiedietly means "more wealth and power". Central Asia would be a good example, as would Manchuria, Mongolia, the Caucasus and the western provinces like Poland, Finland and Pribaltika - although those propably payed for themselves thanks to their industry and resources. A lot of Russian officials honestly believed in that "expansion for the sake of expansion" was the "Russian way".

And I'm not sure about him caring about future Russo-German relations so much. If that was to be the case he wouldn't support any territorial gains at Germany's expanse, but he did. Even Memelland could become a "Russian Alsace".

And while we are on the subject - what about Persia? Russia did occupy Persian Azrerbaijan in 1914, had a "sphere of influence" agreement with Britain about it from 1907, but still wasn't satisfied and sought to amend it to its own benefit. Nicholas II told the Persian ambassador sent to Teheran in 1915 that he ought to prepare for a "partition of Persia in 15 years time". Was there a point in annexing northern Persia? I can't see one, but the Tzar did. And suppose Russia wins WWI, how possible would it be - a deal between Britain, Russia and France on Russia getting the Turkish Straits and a protectorate over Persia in return for giving France and Britain a free hand in Arabia?

I couldn't give a date: it was referred to in passing by an article I read, so possibly the opinion was actually that of somebody else and I was getting mixed up with East Prussia, which was certainly Sazonov.

No problem - I have the same problem myself, a bunch of magazines in the closet which I remember what they were about, but finding that precise piece of info being impossible. And like I said, Sazonov had many plans in his head, he could very well speak about his reservations for annexing East Prussia to some people, and later speak about not having any problems about it to someone else.


How dare you! We're Free Kirk on the islands. Everybody's guilty of everything.

Less facetiously, my ancestors did take part in the war as merchant sailors and I suppose they got their pay. They also got a chance to live in an independent Britain committed to being a place worth living in rather than a Nazi colony, which sounds to me like a decent idea. And of course Britain was a great mercantile marine power as a result of several centuries of global brigandage.

So are the tars responsible for the Bengal famine? If so, what could they have done to avoid being responsible? If nothing, what sick kind of justice is this?

By todays standards XVII - XVIII century England would propably be a "terror state" and part of some "Axis of Evil". But lets not compare the Age of Sail with the Industrial Era, especially the one after the trauma of WWI - which did certainly change the perception of what 'war' is for the civilized world.


I am ascribing individual guilt where it can be ascribed, or trying. What is the opposite of individual guilt? Collective guilt, which is immoral.


So what exactly is criminal about the behavior of a tar or of an ordinary Soviet soldier who didn't happen to hypothetically kill somebody's mum?

I'm not talking collective guilt, I'm talking being a accomplice. Imagine a hypothetical situation where 5 people break into a room where Joe is. They exit the room with some of Joe's stuff, split it among themselves near his house and get caught by the police. Joe is found dead in his room, killed by a single strike in his head. We know he was alive when the 5 men entered and dead when they exited, we also know only one of them killed him - but we don't know which one, since they all claim they didn't do it, and that they didn't steal anything, just got the stuff from the other four without knowledge where it came from. What do you think would be more just - let them allgo, becausethe "individual perpetrator" can'tbe idnetified, or accuse and sentence them all for murder and theft - because they did it together and none of them stoped the one doing it?

Except that we're talking about real bleedin' life. I mean, the Soviet people didn't 'share the spoils' of anything insofar as 14% of them had been needlessly horribly killed. The average Britain throughout our imperial career was having no fun at all. And so on so forth. And can one equate a person plucked from the slums, sent to India, and fighting for his life against mutineers with somebody who beats up old women back in the slum? Not if we wish to be taken seriously by people who have to inhabit the planet Earth.

Did you by any chance read Houseman, because you reminded me of 'the Shopshire lad'. And you know well thatyes, 14% of them died, but the remaining 86% ended up with polish potatos on their plates, drinking slovak wine from Czech crystal (figuratively speaking). They did reap those lands they invaded for their fruits. And hiding behind 'state policy' doesn't change the objective fact. The boy from the slums may nothave got to enjoy Indian spices, but Boris from Smolensk certainly did enjoy those nice electric lights powered by coal stolen from Romania, etc.


Your philosophy appears to be that no division or complexity could possibly exist that could prevent the treatment of the 'gang' as some sort of corporate person.

I don't like over-complicating things. If you kill or steal from a person you are a thief or a murder and if you get caught you get to be called a criminal. But suddenly if you do the exact same things in a uniform, you are 'following suit' and if you get caught you are a 'victim'. Stalin was a thief before becoming a murderer. Not some 'Great politician'. And those who followed him were simple thugs.


It's a crime to buy from a fence, sure, but, and listen carefully now, we are not talking about people in Pilton, we are talking about events which sweep up and deposit millions who never even understood them and the standards of justice applied to individuals in everyday life in a single jurisdiction cannot meaningfully apply.

Everyday we both use something made in China. Are we collaborators with its violent tyrannical regime? By the broadest definition, yes. Do we deserve to be hauled in front of a court as evil folk?

Thats a legitimate point of view, that there can not be a analogy between Criminal or Civil Law and International Law, because the state is a sovereign entity and a person is not. Quite common even. But don't you think that even though analogies can't be applied, international law ought to be based on civil and criminal law? That its fair to treat states like legal entities, and conflicts between them being resolved, or punished the same way they punish their own subjects? I think that would be very just indeed, even if the relations between states are magnitudes more complex than those between any legal persons.

So yeah, if I buy stuff from China I do support their tyranny (hence why I avoid buying Chinese, seriously). But I didn't crash into Mr. Lee's home, and neither did any of my countrymen. So I would deserve a trial, but propably not a death sentence. If I landed on Hainan with a rifle, then I wouldn't expect to be treated nicely though.


It went on to spend two decades not waging any foreign wars, signing non-aggression pacts with its neighbours, and joining the League of Nations but we mustn't disrupt the narrative.

The Soviet Union was founded in 1922. Two decades, thats 20 years. So in the years 1922-1942 the Soviet Union managed to wage a war in Kamchatka, Yakutia, Uiguria, Mongolia, find itself in a conflict with China over a railway, invaded Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Romania. Truly wonderful is the peaceful land of the Soviets!

On a serious note - don't you find it telling that you could only say two decades? That following that the Soviet Union engaged in hostile, agressive military actions every few years? And that prior to that, the Russian Empire did the same every two decades as well, approximately? You would be hard pressed to find 25 years of Russian history when it did not invade, annex, blackmail with force or otherwise be hostile to its neighbours. Not much of a 'land of victims' it is.

The thought has crossed my minds that without a non-aggression pact with the USSR the Nazis would not have invaded Poland, and that without a Munich agreement the Nazis would not have invaded Poland, and that if the Nazis had not been helped into power by the German old guard the Nazis would not have invaded Poland, and that if it wasn't for the man who invented the boot we'd be free of all this trouble.

Don't mistake "predictable outcome" with "the butterfly effect". You are sounding like that lawyer from AllyMcBeal who gives speeches like "Your Honor, my client did pullthe trigger of his gun while pointing it at the deceased womens temple at point blank range, but he did not know itwould kill her. Besides, he would not have done if the gun wouldn't have been manufactured. Blame the Colt Company!". This might work in the USA, but it does go against my common reason.



It does not for some reason cause me to stop believing that if the USSR took an amoral self-interested decision that turned out to be a huge mistake, it was not exactly exceptional.

Since it was possible to extend power to these place in co-operation with Germany - and probably easier, since Britain and France would certainly have warily watched each Soviet move - why not do that, unless the USSR, for self-interested cold-headed reasons, opposed the Nazis and wished to construct an anti-Nazi coalition? And that is what I was asked about.

Sure,go ahead. Start a war. Just don't complain and call yourself a victim when you and 16% of your countrymen die.

I'm implying that they were both imperial states held together by violence; that says nothing about which was 'worse'.

Since the Statute of Westminster Britain had renounced any right to coerce the dominions: they were officially allies and partners.

Try jolly old Uganda.

Every country is held together by violence to some degree - they differ on how much they rely on it. Some use soly force, some use trade relations a keep things together by calling others allies and partners.

And Uganda? Got independence in 1960s I recall, and didn't get a few percent killed of between 1920 - 1960. Estonians would like that too, I'm sure and propably would put Idi Amin in charge of their country, but that would be up to them.

Nobody asked the Czechoslovaks, either; but it was the opinion of the great powers that they belonged to a special club with special rights.

I believe we practice alternate history?

Czechoslovakia signed an alliance with the SU earlier in 1935. Point is, Stalin goals towards it hasn't changed between 1935 and 1945.

You think a scenario where the Red Army occupies all of Poland and Czechoslovakia and doesn't turn them into puppet states wouldn't belong to the ASB section?


On my bike.

Yeah, I'd propably try to flee too.
 
Britain joined the war initially for the goal of re-establishing Belgium and preventing the channel ports from falling into German hands, though by signing an alliance with France it also somewhat supported its war goals. Later Britain's goals got larger: destruction of prussian militarism, obtaining German colonies, democratisation of Germany. Then there were a number of other proclaimed war goals, either directly stated like the Balfour Declaration or Sykes-Picot Agreement or not. Throw in Britain's signing of the Treaty of Bucharest (1916) and the recognition of the Czech and Polish National Comitee (thoughnot the Yugoslav one) and if you don't consider them merly tactical moves Britain wasn't serious about, they ment that it accepted these nations war goals as its own.

Nowhere in any of this is a single-minded drive to expand the area of territorial concession in Europe; obviously Britain couldn't have any, but we were also opposed to the extreme claims from France. Everybody had their own policy and their own reason for following it. We're not mathematicians, so our formulae cannot be rules, only useful generalisations. This is, perhaps, the root of the disagreement.

As you noted, Sazonov was one of the few high ranking officials who realised that Russia was already to big for its own good and incorporating more minorities would be counter-productive in the long term. Emphasis on "few" however - and that he still considered incorporating some more minorities. You know Russian history pretty darn well, you sure know that it is full of situations were it spent a lot of resources, time, wealth and manpower on gaining control over useless territories simply for the heck of it. Or for prestige. Or for a buffer zone. Or for some mythical belief that "more land" immiedietly means "more wealth and power". Central Asia would be a good example,

Central Asia was a pursuit of security and the ability to grow cotton. It probably wasn't worth it, at least from the point of view of money spent, but neither was the British Empire outside India and Malysia. You're description is one of imperialism generally, at least since Rome.

as would Manchuria, Mongolia, the Caucasus and the western provinces like Poland, Finland and Pribaltika - although those propably payed for themselves thanks to their industry and resources. A lot of Russian officials honestly believed in that "expansion for the sake of expansion" was the "Russian way".

So in pursuit of some sort of mythical Russian sonderweg we are constructing a theory and then immediately admitting that most of the examples don't actually work?

Poland was almost certainly a burden, but 'expansion for the sake of expansion' was certainly not going through the head of Alexander I in 1814-15. But apparently you don't like complicating things. Again this maddening desire for simplicity.

And I'm not sure about him caring about future Russo-German relations so much. If that was to be the case he wouldn't support any territorial gains at Germany's expanse, but he did. Even Memelland could become a "Russian Alsace".

Actually he was according to what I read against taking over any part of East Prussia - including presumably the Memel area - because of its special significance. Whether it in fact had a special significance is an open question, but people are wrong all the time.

And while we are on the subject - what about Persia?

Nae flag, daesna count.

That is to say that the European and non-European spheres were treated quite differently by everyone. Russia not only had continuing interests in a Persian sphere-of-influence, but intended extensive annexations in the Ottoman Empire from the moment it got itself involved. That's not what's being discussed.

Was there a point in annexing northern Persia? I can't see one, but the Tzar did.

I don't see the point of anyone annexing anywhere, masel, but I suppose that's what comes of living on an island.

By todays standards XVII - XVIII century England

Britain! :mad:

would propably be a "terror state" and part of some "Axis of Evil". But lets not compare the Age of Sail with the Industrial Era, especially the one after the trauma of WWI - which did certainly change the perception of what 'war' is for the civilized world.

Why not? Comparison eludicates and much of history is an exercise in comparison. Having compared, we needn't decide they're the same - we never actually do, because history is super-complicated. But comparison is a tool in the box.

Having made the theoretical point: the Bengal famine happened in the 1940s and those are the ancestors I'm talking about, of my great-X generation, hence my references to the war and Nazism. We're not, in this instance, talking about the 18th and 19th centuries.

I'm not talking collective guilt, I'm talking being a accomplice. Imagine a hypothetical situation where 5 people break into a room where Joe is.

My father warned me, with the wisdom of the great British civil service, never to trust a hypothetical. They never actually happen.

'I'm not talking about millions of people, I'm talking about five people. Who I just made up'.

They exit the room with some of Joe's stuff, split it among themselves near his house and get caught by the police. Joe is found dead in his room, killed by a single strike in his head. We know he was alive when the 5 men entered and dead when they exited, we also know only one of them killed him - but we don't know which one, since they all claim they didn't do it, and that they didn't steal anything, just got the stuff from the other four without knowledge where it came from. What do you think would be more just - let them allgo, becausethe "individual perpetrator" can'tbe idnetified, or accuse and sentence them all for murder and theft - because they did it together and none of them stoped the one doing it?

Which one of them was violently conscripted into the gang?

This is a classic example of hypothetical as a device for escaping the thing actually being discussed. Many of my ancestors took part in an imperial system and war-effort with starving Indians at the other end. But they never murdered anyone. What would you have done to them? Is sailing on a British merchant ship now equivelant to coshing granny?

Did you by any chance read Houseman, because you reminded me of 'the Shopshire lad'.

Everybody should read Housman, but I'm not from Shropshire but from Mid-Lothian and as such I know very well that *manic shivering after the manner of a Covenanting minister* we're ALL going to die. That dying tends to put a crimp in one's life plans is a fact worth bearing in mind at all times.

And you know well thatyes, 14% of them died, but the remaining 86% ended up with polish potatos on their plates, drinking slovak wine from Czech crystal (figuratively speaking).

'Untruthfully speaking'. Actually they were eating American spam. (Since when do Russian stereotypes even drink wine, anyway?)

The facts are there. Why do you wish to replace them with a framework of awkward metaphors and grudges when you could understand them as facts? We all know life is complicated and it's hard to disentangle right and wrong. If we're going to be literary, do you read or see a tragedy with the intent of finding out who was responsible for everything and arresting them, or do you just appreciate a human story? Can you not try to appreciate history as a great many human stories?

They did reap those lands they invaded for their fruits. And hiding behind 'state policy' doesn't change the objective fact. The boy from the slums may nothave got to enjoy Indian spices, but Boris from Smolensk certainly did enjoy those nice electric lights powered by coal stolen from Romania, etc.

'Some of the time what I say isn't true - actually most of the time - but it is still objective fact.' Several Warpac countries ended up subsidised by the USSR as part of its, hem-hem, state policy. Were Bulgarians nicking Soviet fossil fuel? Or is the world too big and complicated for this kind of deranged 'logic' (as if Romania were a person rather than an imaginary entity)?

I don't like over-complicating things.

Don't study history, jim. :p

I think I've found the problem. I like complicating things, because I like the truth and the truth is complicated.

If you kill or steal from a person you are a thief or a murder

-Er. Murderer. Sorry, obnoxious pedantry, I know, but that really gets up my nose.

and if you get caught you get to be called a criminal. But suddenly if you do the exact same things in a uniform, you are 'following suit' and if you get caught you are a 'victim'. Stalin was a thief before becoming a murderer. Not some 'Great politician'. And those who followed him were simple thugs.

But what if you don't steal and you don't murder and only participate - partly against your will - in frameworks that do? You'd prosecute the man who drove the bus that the criminal used to leave the scene.

People who murder and rape and steal are bad people. Nobody is disputing this. But apparently every adult Russian was responsible for the Holocaust or something.

Thats a legitimate point of view, that there can not be a analogy between Criminal or Civil Law and International Law, because the state is a sovereign entity and a person is not. Quite common even. But don't you think that even though analogies can't be applied, international law ought to be based on civil and criminal law? That its fair to treat states like legal entities, and conflicts between them being resolved, or punished the same way they punish their own subjects? I think that would be very just indeed, even if the relations between states are magnitudes more complex than those between any legal persons.

But you're fiddling your own principle. If states are treated like people, it' states that are so treated. You're talking about people. You're in fact treating people like states.

So yeah, if I buy stuff from China I do support their tyranny (hence why I avoid buying Chinese, seriously).

Practically impossible to avoid altogether; and then one merely starts playing six degrees of seperation, since we participate in an economy intimately bound to the Chinese one. We live in a nasty world.

But I didn't crash into Mr. Lee's home, and neither did any of my countrymen. So I would deserve a trial,

There's principle and there's silliness. Now everybody deserves a trial, apparently.

but propably not a death sentence. If I landed on Hainan with a rifle, then I wouldn't expect to be treated nicely though.

What do you do with the rifle? Why did you land there?

The Soviet Union was founded in 1922. Two decades, thats 20 years. So in the years 1922-1942 the Soviet Union managed to wage a war in Kamchatka, Yakutia,

Excuse me, I believe those areas were part of the ex-Russian Empire and therefore shooting at 'em was okay, like how Britain was allowed to shoot Indians.

Uiguria, Mongolia, find itself in a conflict with China over a railway,

Do you want me to start listing all the uses of military and armed force by various other countries?

invaded Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, Romania. Truly wonderful is the peaceful land of the Soviets!

I obviously meant up until the point we were discussing. You can be excessively literal with numbers, well done.

On a serious note - don't you find it telling that you could only say two decades? That following that the Soviet Union engaged in hostile, agressive military actions every few years? And that prior to that, the Russian Empire did the same every two decades as well, approximately? You would be hard pressed to find 25 years of Russian history when it did not invade, annex, blackmail with force or otherwise be hostile to its neighbours.

I could say the same about my own country. Hang on, I do say the same about my own country. All the time. I just don't use this to reflect morally on its inhabitants through a weird fixation with collective guilt.

Not much of a 'land of victims' it is.

Sure neither it is while we're talking in Hibeno-English and so, but that 'land' is a rake of soil or it's been imagined up and sure.

'Lands' were nostly invented in the last 200 years, so why base moral judgments about the past on them? And can a regime capable of victimising foreigners not victimise its own citizens?

The world is complicated. A bourgeois Victorian lassie belongs to a class of arch-victimisers: for her Rangit is being knouted on a plantation. But she is also, as a woman, a victim of an absurd and damaging order of patriarchalism. Is she Noble Sufferer or Vile Villain (or an actual person existing in the real world)?

But apparently we don't like complication.

Don't mistake "predictable outcome" with "the butterfly effect". You are sounding like that lawyer from AllyMcBeal who gives speeches like "Your Honor, my client did pullthe trigger of his gun while pointing it at the deceased womens temple at point blank range, but he did not know itwould kill her. Besides, he would not have done if the gun wouldn't have been manufactured. Blame the Colt Company!". This might work in the USA, but it does go against my common reason.

Do you mean to imply that I'm American? :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::p

People who think that everybody who buys Chinese only probably ought not to be executed lose the right to talk about common sense.

Sure,go ahead. Start a war. Just don't complain and call yourself a victim when you and 16% of your countrymen die.

But I didn't start it. I couldn't, I was in the GULAG for distributing subversive pamphlets.

Every country is held together by violence to some degree - they differ on how much they rely on it. Some use soly force, some use trade relations a keep things together by calling others allies and partners.

So violence inflicted inside one's own empire is okay (except when done in Yakutia)?

And Uganda? Got independence in 1960s I recall, and didn't get a few percent killed of between 1920 - 1960.

Now who's picking dates? Uganda saw massive dying surrounding, for example, the destruction of Bunyoro. There's plenty of examples to name.

Estonians would like that too, I'm sure and propably would put Idi Amin in charge of their country, but that would be up to them.

What?

Czechoslovakia signed an alliance with the SU earlier in 1935. Point is, Stalin goals towards it hasn't changed between 1935 and 1945.

You think a scenario where the Red Army occupies all of Poland and Czechoslovakia and doesn't turn them into puppet states wouldn't belong to the ASB section?

Not if Stalin thought he'd be bombed if he did. But since when did signing an alliance become a sign of one's desire for annexations?

Yeah, I'd propably try to flee too.

I referred to the slogan 'On consideration I'd rather be on my bike' [than doing some apparently pointless task or making some difficult decision] and meaning to imply that your dichotomies are false. One person can be victim and victimiser.
 
Last edited:
We appear to be going round in circles. I find your conceptions of justice to be dangerously absurd, outrageously oversimplified, selectively applied, based on the idea that mathematical formulae can be applied to human morals and yet smelling heartily of old-fashioned prejudice. I regard all of this as ridiculous, but this kind of language isn't going to change anyone's opinion.

I have work to be doing. We disagree in the strongest terms. Look, I reached the only conclusions we are going to reach! I don't think anyone's learning anything, so can we call it a day?
 

MSZ

Banned
We appear to be going round in circles. I find your conceptions of justice to be dangerously absurd, outrageously oversimplified, selectively applied, based on the idea that mathematical formulae can be applied to human morals and yet smelling heartily of old-fashioned prejudice. I regard all of this as ridiculous, but this kind of language isn't going to change anyone's opinion.

I have work to be doing. We disagree in the strongest terms. Look, I reached the only conclusions we are going to reach! I don't think anyone's learning anything, so can we call it a day?

Sure. I enjoyed the discussion as well :). But maybe we could keep going on about "maximum possible extension of Russia"? Preferably with a more successfull Russian Empire if you don't mind. With Central Europe being covered, what about Persia? I was serious about that - would it be possible for Russia to annex northern Persia with Britain's concent 10 years after WWI? Also the rest of Asia would still make a nice subject.

PS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSZ
Estonians would like that too, I'm sure and propably would put Idi Amin in charge of their country, but that would be up to them.

What?

My bad - I meant to write wouldn't put Idi Amin. I correct these typos when I see them, but sometimes they elude me. Have to start writing my posts in Word before posting.
 
Oh, sweet Jesus. You're so misguided even -I- feel the need to intervene. .

If he had no part in the war and didn't get a penny from it, he wasn't guilty of anything.

That's his point. None of the people of the Soviet Union--when I say people, I -don't- mean the court of the Red Czar--gained anything from the war. Anything at all. They went to fight because they were ordered to do so, and it was their jobs, and it was most certainly NOT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO DO ANYTHING ELSE. Do you understand that? If you were conscripted and you tried to desert, your family wouldn't eat. You would probably be sent to the gulags or, perhaps better, executed on-site. Just because they fought and tried to gain some little bit of betterment via pillaging doesn't mean they bear the responsibility for Russian atrocities. The same goes for many German sub-commanders and foot-soldiers.

[/quote]And again you are seperating "state guilt" with "individual guilt". Foreign policy is most often conducted by a small group yes - but executed by the masses when it comes to things like war. So hiding behind the coat of arms of a country and conducting criminal activity doesn't reduce the guilt of the individual. It's like claiming average criminal Joe working for a gang can't be found guilty for assaulting Granny Smith, because he did it for the group - and then only shared the spoils.[/quote]

Read above.

I guess it depends on your belief of what is just. I don't know about the UK, but many countries find the beneficiaries of criminal activity who knew that the source of their benefits comes from illegal activity are considered to be co-responsible.

Russia/the USSR was different, always has been different, and always will be different. If they told you to do something, you had to, or death or torture or prison-camp would follow. Those who benefited from any atrocities did so knowing that they were one step away from death themselves, which is certainly why they bear no guilt. If you are coerced into committing a crime, you didn't commit the crime. (Look up blackmail, because that's what life essentially was) It's better these days, of course, but the prisons are still hell and the Russian government still does atrocious things.

I could argue about whether these republics were states, or were recognized, or whether there was a union but it certainly didn't matter for the Ukrainians. For them, they were the target of a Polish, Soviet, Whites even - alliance. And objectively such an alliance did exist for a moment - though circumstances where different there.

Objectively, no alliance existed. The three groups were still at war with each other, but they had all collectively declared war on a fourth party. This, in international relations, is called "co-belligerence" and by no means implies an alliance. Think of the Yugoslav Wars. In 1992-94, both Serbia and Croatia were fighting Bosnia-Herzegovina. Were they allies? By no means, as I'm sure you will agree! They were still fighting each other and were simply serving as co-belligerents. International relations and justice is far more complex than your simplified principles will have it.


That is your belief? You do know that the Soviet Union upon its formation officially declared its intent on annexing the rest of the world into one Global Social Soviet Union. So it was hardly looking for avoiding a war - it sought it. Has the thought that without an alliance with the Soviet Union Hitler would not have invaded Poland - thus preventing the war - crossed your mind? Soviet history is quite clear that it wasn't a land of peace loving pacifists.

You know no Soviet history at all, do you? Let me enlighten you. There were several important factions in the Politburo by 1930: the Left Opposition, such as Trotsky, who wanted global revolution, instant collectivization, and all that good stuff, the Right Opposition, such as Rykov and, for a while, Stalin himself, who wanted socialism in one country (that, that right there, that's important), the continuation of state capitalism, and all THAT good stuff, and of course the center, represented by Stalin, who advocated moderation in everything. Stalin, after destroying the left and turning the right into a political sock puppet, proceeded to move onto a path of socialism in one country; namely, strengthening the USSR internally rather than going to war when they were not prepared. They were not strengthened enough, in reality and in Stalin's own opinion, when war came. You should read the Court of the Red Tsar, I think you'd learn a lot.

I'd say principles were there, they just weren't obeyed. But are you again implying that the British Empire was just as bad as the Soviet Union because it had troops stationed all over the world? I'd say the average Estonian would love for his country to be in a Canada-like situation between 1940-1990.

I doubt the average Estonian would love for his country to be in an India-like situation. Or a Nigeria-like situation. Or really, any other British colony that wasn't a settler colony. They have all, without exception, turned into corrupt, poor hellholes (even India, though it's getting quite a bit better), and that's not to say they weren't when the British were there. It was just as bad, if not worse, than living under the Tsars at the time.

Funny thatyou mention those - I did read about them and in neither case did the Soviet Union even try to start negotiating the matter with either Poland and Romania - rather demanding that France and Britain force the two into allowing troop passage for Red Army troops. This was quite suspicious and both the Poles and Romanians rightly assumed that any "liberation army" would turn into an "occupation army" right after the war. History proved them right. So those attempts hardly had the goal of being anti-nazi - more like trditional attepts at increasing its empire.

My above comments were not to say that the Soviets didn't try to grab advantages when they could. But that doesn't mean they weren't trying to create anti-Nazi coalitions, whilst also grabbing bits for themselves around the side. Just like every other government in the world, Stalin and the rest were motivated by the lowest common denominator; greed and selfishness. However, Stalin definitely did see how dangerous the Nazis were and was trying to buy himself time to build up his own forces against them, and build an early Allies.
 
Top