Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-01-2012, 10:39 PM
 
26,784 posts, read 22,561,271 times
Reputation: 10040

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12 View Post
I don't see anything about any murders in the article you quoted. Did you read it?


The issue was finally settled in 2004, where a joint team of Polish and Russian historians (prof. Waldemar Rezmer and prof. Zbigniew Karpus from Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń and prof. Gennady Matveyev from Moscow State University), after reexamining documents from Polish and Russian archives published their results (printed in Russia by Federal Agency for Russian Archives). Their findings show that the number of Russian POWs can be estimated at between 80,000 and 85,000, and that the number of deaths in the camps can be estimated from 16,000 (Karpus, Rezmer) to 20,000 (Matveyev). Existing documents and proofs does not also confirm thesis made by many Russian historians that Russian POWs were specially exterminated in Polish camps because of their nationality, religion or other

issues. [1][9] They also show that the main cause of death were various illnesses and epidemics (influenza, typhus, cholera and dysentery), noting that these diseases also took a heavy toll among

fighting soldiers and the civilian population. [1]
Yeah, "the issue was settled in 2004," but we are not talking about 2004, but 1939, when the memories of Polish claims to Ukraine were still alive; Stalin didn't want to have Poland as a strong independent state on his border under those circumstances, which is quite understandable.
( You do know that Polish-Russian rivalry goes back in centuries, so it's understandable why Russian Empire being in time in stronger position didn't mind to remove Poland from the map? )
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-01-2012, 10:45 PM
 
26,784 posts, read 22,561,271 times
Reputation: 10040
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12 View Post
So because Finland was so close it is absolutely ok to attack and take part of Finnish territory???


Not even close to secret paragraphs of Ribbentrop-Molotov and subsequent Russian aggression on Poland.
Hitler attacked Poland together with Stalin. What are you comparing here?
I am not just "comparing," I am pointing to you why Stalin didn't trust anyone, because the example of Munich agreement showed him what "potential allies" in Europe were all about.
So he did what was logical under the circumstances; signed the pact with Germans and expanded his borders. He knew that the war with Germany was imminent, but he was buying his time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2012, 10:53 PM
 
2,920 posts, read 2,798,833 times
Reputation: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Yeah, "the issue was settled in 2004," but we are not talking about 2004, but 1939, when the memories of Polish claims to Ukraine were still alive; Stalin didn't want to have Poland as a strong independent state on his border under those circumstances, which is quite understandable.
( You do know that Polish-Russian rivalry goes back in centuries, so it's understandable why Russian Empire being in time in stronger position didn't mind to remove Poland from the map? )
I have no idea what you are talking about. There was no murder of Soviet military in Polish camps. Stalin simply signed a deal with Butler for another partitioning of Poland. He was the addressor in 1939 and 1940. Only in 1941 he started playing a victim when it was clear Butler doublecrossed him.
Whatever you say it down not Justify Soviet attack on Poland.

This is the problem erasure. You quote some BS from Soviet propaganda book and use them to support even more hillarious claims.


So far we have:
1) Stalin was right to attack and occupy Poland in 1939
2) Stalin was right to attack Finland and Romania in 1940.
3) Stalin was right to install puppet governments in Central Europe against agreements with the allies and wishes of the affected nations

That must be Soviet justice.

Last edited by rebel12; 09-01-2012 at 11:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2012, 10:59 PM
 
5,719 posts, read 6,449,725 times
Reputation: 3647
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Who told you I am all that nervous?

Honestly, with Truman's doctrine in place it's already not so easy to determine who started what first ( after all the Communist parties in France or Italy were in place independently from Stalin, were they not? And the danger of communist takeover in Greece was happening independently from comrade Lenin or Stalin either.)
That's number one, and number two this "offered" to the Soviets aid by the State department wouldn't really have passed the congress to begin with.
( Another thing - I used to be staunch anti-communist, but now when I see the results of corporate take-over around the world, I am not all that sure...)
The Italian Communist party definitely had a lot of independence from Stalin -- though of course it didn't say no to funding from Moscow. It was the exception though in Western Europe. The French Communist Party was typically subservient to Moscow.

And I agree the Soviets weren't getting aid even if they had wanted it -- and Stalin was smart not to fall into that trap -- but he should not have forced the Eastern Bloc to reject the money as well. It left the Eastern Bloc endlessly trying to make up the gap when it was completely impossible for them to do so. Of course that had nothing to do with the DEMISE of Communism, but it meant Eastern Europe would always be the "second world" whether Communism worked or not.

I'm not an anti-communist at all personally. I am a definite admirer of a large social welfare net, and you need only look at the pending extinction of the American Middle Class following 30 years of failed Trickle Down Economics to show that less government regulation does not spread the wealth around. I do not want total Communism but I'd definitely like a mixed economy leaning more toward socialism than what the US currently has.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2012, 11:03 PM
 
26,784 posts, read 22,561,271 times
Reputation: 10040
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12 View Post
Of course. Not as friend but ally. In
1
Sure-sure...
That's why the allies didn't open the second front until the 1944, when the worst for the Russians was already over and they didn't send troops to the Eastern front, where the biggest war theater was taking place.
Stalin was suspicious of the desire of allies to bring Russia and Germany to a conflict, that they would finish each other off.
Communist Russia a "true ally" of Great Britain and the US in particular, that was always allergic to Communism?
Please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2012, 11:05 PM
 
2,920 posts, read 2,798,833 times
Reputation: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
I am not just "comparing," I am pointing to you why Stalin didn't trust anyone, because the example of Munich agreement showed him what "potential allies" in Europe were all about.
So he did what was logical under the circumstances; signed the pact with Germans and expanded his borders. He knew that the war with Germany was imminent, but he was buying his time.
So to buy his time he attacked and occupied Poland and then Finland and Romania. That's not "buying time" lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2012, 11:07 PM
 
2,920 posts, read 2,798,833 times
Reputation: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by juppiter View Post
The Italian Communist party definitely had a lot of independence from Stalin -- though of course it didn't say no to funding from Moscow. It was the exception though in Western Europe. The French Communist Party was typically subservient to Moscow.

And I agree the Soviets weren't getting aid even if they had wanted it -- and Stalin was smart not to fall into that trap -- but he should not have forced the Eastern Bloc to reject the money as well. .
How about giving the Eastern block freedom? That's no good? Why were Russians occupying Central Europe 50 years after the war???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2012, 11:14 PM
 
2,920 posts, read 2,798,833 times
Reputation: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
I am not just "comparing," I am pointing to you why Stalin didn't trust anyone, because the example of Munich agreement showed him what "potential allies" in Europe were all about.
So he did what was logical under the circumstances; signed the pact with Germans and expanded his borders. He knew that the war with Germany was imminent, but he was buying his time.
He signed a pact with Hitler and attacked Poland, Finland and Romania.
Great. He was so much better than Hitler lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2012, 11:17 PM
 
2,920 posts, read 2,798,833 times
Reputation: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Sure-sure...
That's why the allies didn't open the second front until the 1944, when the worst for the Russians was already over and they didn't send troops to the Eastern front, where the biggest war theater was taking place.
Stalin was suspicious of the desire of allies to bring Russia and Germany to a conflict, that they would finish each other off.
Communist Russia a "true ally" of Great Britain and the US in particular, that was always allergic to Communism?
Please.
You are trying to explain events from 1939 with events that took place in 1944???? In 1939 the US was still neutral.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2012, 11:22 PM
 
5,719 posts, read 6,449,725 times
Reputation: 3647
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12 View Post
How about giving the Eastern block freedom? That's no good? Why were Russians occupying Central Europe 50 years after the war???
That's off topic from what was being debated... I must not be expressing myself well because my arguments keep getting misconstrued

But to answer your question, yes they should have been given a choice. But at the same time look at Communists being forced to leave governments in Western Europe to appease the US -- kind of the opposite side of the same coin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top