Putin to Make Equating Stalin, USSR to Hitler, Nazi Germany Illegal

[gebhk]

Interestingly enough, all of the Kresy's Jews could have been spared from the Holocaust had Stalin decided to deport all of them en masse to the interior of the Soviet Union between September 1939 and June 1941--though some of them would have likely perished as a result of these deportations.

Hardly all. After occupying the east half of Poland, the Soviets started killing and deporting on a scale entirely comparable to that of the Germans in 'their' half. In both halves (and here are those pesky similarities again) the main hit was against the middle classes - in essence those people who could mobilise opposition - but also the 'enemies of the people': the Jews for the Nazis, the 'capitalists' for the Soviets. Unfortunately in the East the 'capitalists' were often also Jews, so in both areas Jewish losses were disproportionally high.

So, far more 'interestingly', all the Jews of Poland could have been spared the holocaust only if Germany AND the Soviet Union hadn't invaded. Alas they did and the result is the result.

1

7 September Moscow looking at in fact collapsed Polish state, taking into account that Eastern part of Polant (up to the Curzon line) was populated mainly by Ukrainians and Belorussians, decided to defends lives and property of local population that could be under imminent threat if Hitler would occupy the whole Poland. Btw, no less than hundreds thousands Jews were saved from the Holocaust disaster thanks to move made by Moscow.

I will pass by the shear hypocrisy and ludicrousness of this patent bare-faced self-justification because I can't believe that the authors thought this will convince anyone. It does however, perhaps unwittingly, draw another similarity between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany of the period. Much the same ludicrous self-justification was put forward by Germany for invading Denmark (sorry, I mean protecting Denmark's neutrality from being violated by the British and French in the light of Denmark's military weakness) and all its aggressions from Czechoslovakia onward. This surreal self justification would be marginally more convincing if the Soviet Union hadn't agreed beforehand to dismember Poland jointly with Germany and had not co-operated fully on a campaign of murder and deportation to subjugate their newly conquered territories. Oops, is that another similarity?

That's the problem with 'selective amnesia' when it comes to manipulating history. It tends to drive you into logically unsupportable positions so grotesque that you end up having to enact laws to shut down discussion altogether.....

[Sid Guttridge]

Double post

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Futurist,

You post, "Yes--though Hitler didn't actually stop there, unlike Putin. Hitler went for the lion's share of Poland as well. This would be comparable to Putin also going after at least all of Novorossiya and Kiev."

I would suggest that, if he has his way, Putin may not have finished yet and that what you postulate is very much on the cards if he is not opposed.

Among other constituencies, Putin is supported by extreme Russian nationalists who don't even recognise that the Ukrainians and Belarusians are not Russians. It is only a month since Russia massed large forces on the Ukrainian border and Putin has since openly supported Belarus forcing down an EU airliner illegally.

Watch this space. There is almost certainly more to come. The West needs to prepare for war, if only to head one off. If it doesn't, it could quite possibly find Russia on the borders of Romania and Poland and, it would currently appear, against the wishes of most Ukrainians and Belarusians.

"True, Australia is significantly richer than Russia, but Australia also didn't endure decades of Communist rule like Russia did." But Poland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania did "endure decades of Communist rule". Not only do they have few natural resources compared to Russia but they have average per capita incomes far high than resource-rich Russia. Russia is underperforming seriously by this metric.

Putin's foreign policy in pursuit of what you have described as "Russotriumphalism", has seriously retarded the extension of the benefits of Russia's inherent natural wealth to its population, who have a life expectancy similar to Morocco, Mexico or Malaya. It is also increasingly making Russia a dependency of China, which already has an economy several times as large as Russia's and is drawing further ahead.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi snpol,

We know that, "The law refers to WW2 and the Soviet union entered the war 22 June 1941." We are debating why this should be so?

I ask again, "So why does this proposed legislation protect the USSR after June 1941, if it was fundamentally unchanged? If it was good or bad before 22 June 1941, it was good or bad afterwards surely?"

You post, "For example the war with Finland (1939/40) was not a part of WW2 and is not covered by the law." Even assuming that was true, why not?

You post, "The law forbids to equate (for example) Nazi invasion in Greece and Soviet invasion in Iran." Why? Are Russians presumed to be incapable of differentiating between the two or making a case illustrating the differences?

The segregation of Soviet activities over 1941-45 as irreproachable is entirely artificial. It seems that the legislation is designed to create an unblemished national myth of the "Great Patriotic War" as one of unalloyed Soviet principle and nobility when it clearly wasn't. It was a war that the USSR was dragged into and which it conducted with less than unimpeachable skill, with great ruthlessness at massive human cost to its own people, let alone others. And yet it appears this legislation will dampen discussion of these flaws in the USSR's conduct of its war.

You post, "Not all totalitarian dictatorships have the same nature." Very true, but they share enough in common for them to be categorized together, as is the case with Germany and the USSR.

You post, "Nazism and communism were political antagonists and first of all Hitler excluded Communist members of the parliament." Yup. How many nationalists were there in the USSR's parliament?

You post, "Later Germany and the Soviet union supported different sides during the civil war in Spain." Yup, however, while the Soviet Union nominally supported the democratically elected Spanish government, it in fact sponsored the creeping seizure of the levers of power there by Communists.

You post, ".....Germany were capitalist states". Hitler certainly inherited a capitalist state (just like he inherited a liberal democracy) but he increasingly put control of industry under state direction and the massive HermanGoering Werke was in effect a state industry. He also got rid of free trades unions and put them under state direction, all as in the USSR. Hitler didn't call his party National SOCIALIST for nothing.

You post, "About 60 thousand of Poles were massacred by Ukrainian nationalists." Quite possibly, but then the USSR committed the Katyn and related massacres on Poles. Looking at the sources of Polish victimhood doesn't do the USSR any favours.

You post, "Moscow that time regarded Baltic states as unlawful separatist entities." No, we have already established that Moscow didn't. It granted them full diplomatic recognition. I quoted an example to you above. It may have reneged on this in 1939, but to pretend that it never recognized the Baltic States is simply wrong.

You post, "Independence is not an automatic right of any people." Why not, if they live in a consolidated block on territory for centuries and don't wish to be ruled by others? I have reason to defend the Spanish position over Catalonia.

You post, "Leaders of Scottish nationalists demand the second referendum but London says NO." No, London granted a referendum less than a decade ago and they lost. Furthermore, at the time Scottish Nationalists said it would be a "once in a generation" exercise. It is not London that is reneging on this. The precedent has been set and there will undoubtedly be more Scottish referenda in good time.

Must go now. I will finish my reply later.

Cheers,

Sid.

[snpol]

We know that, "The law refers to WW2 and the Soviet union entered the war 22 June 1941." We are debating why this should be so?

Just because Russian lawmakers made this decision. Why did they make? For political reasons.

I ask again, "So why does this proposed legislation protect the USSR after June 1941, if it was fundamentally unchanged? If it was good or bad before 22 June 1941, it was good or bad afterwards surely?"

I have answered the question. Let's not make circles. Before and after 22 June 1941 Moscow acted in national interests. One way before and another way after due to dramatically changed geopolitical environment. In this context it is not right to equate the Soviet union and Nazi Germany after the USSR entered WW2.

You post, "The law forbids to equate (for example) Nazi invasion in Greece and Soviet invasion in Iran." Why? Are Russians presumed to be incapable of differentiating between the two or making a case illustrating the differences?

It's just politics. Some publicly made claims are regarded as unacceptable ones. The majority in the UK are able to reject any Holocaust denial claims but they nevertheless forbidden and it is right.

The segregation of Soviet activities over 1941-45 as irreproachable is entirely artificial. It seems that the legislation is designed to create an unblemished national myth of the "Great Patriotic War" as one of unalloyed Soviet principle and nobility when it clearly wasn't. It was a war that the USSR was dragged into and which it conducted with less than unimpeachable skill, with great ruthlessness at massive human cost to its own people, let alone others. And yet it appears this legislation will dampen discussion of these flaws in the USSR's conduct of its war.

No, it is possible to discuss events, wrongdoing, missed opportunities, mistakes and even crimes on a base of established facts.

You post, "Not all totalitarian dictatorships have the same nature." Very true, but they share enough in common for them to be categorized together, as is the case with Germany and the USSR.

There were more different features from my point of view. For example - economy. Germany remained to be a capitalist country. The Soviet union was multi-ethnical state while Germany was in fact mono-ethnical one. And of course Nazi ideology and Communist one were absolutely different. They were antagonists. I just repeat it - not all dictatorships are identical in nature.
Has Nazi Germany much in common with Great Britain under rule of the Lord Protector?

You post, "Moscow that time regarded Baltic states as unlawful separatist entities." No, we have already established that Moscow didn't. It granted them full diplomatic recognition. I quoted an example to you above. It may have reneged on this in 1939, but to pretend that it never recognized the Baltic States is simply wrong.

I didn't claim that the USSR never recognised Baltic states but it was temporary recognition when Soviet Russia had to do it being weakened by the civil war and intervention of foreign forces.

You post, "Independence is not an automatic right of any people." Why not, if they live in a consolidated block on territory for centuries and don't wish to be ruled by others? I have reason to defend the Spanish position over Catalonia.

So you believe that the Catalonians haven't right for independence. But do you believe that Albanians in Kosovo have this right?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi snpol,

You post, "In comparison with American imperialism, Putin's Russia is merely regional power as it was called in Washington." True, a regional power which has tried to annexed the territory of two of its neighbours. The USA has declared no aspirations to annex any territory off its neighbours since WWII.

Sadly, the fact that both Nazi Germany and the USSR used "malign neglect" to cause the mass deaths of the other's POWs, particularly early in the campaign is "backed by facts and reliable sources". An 85% fatality rate for Germans captured up to 2 February 1942 and the deaths of millions of Soviet POWs in German custody are unmatched in any other theatres by any other countries. They are even unmatched for POWs taken by any of the minor participants on the Eastern Front. Regarding each other, Nazi Germany and the USSR were playing by different rules to almost all other participants in WWII, but similar rules to each other. For example, the USSR had withdrawn from the Hague Conventions and Germany therefore decided that it wasn't constrained by them there either.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi snpol,

I fear you are right and this legislation is purely politically motivated.

Certainly, there was a "dramatically changed geopolitical environment" after 22 June 1941, at least internationally. However, even in this context it is right to compare the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, where appropriate, and equate them if necessary. The two totalitarian regimes retained many similarities with each other that they did not share with others, both in their structures and their conduct of the war.

No, it is not true that Holocaust denial claims are forbidden in the UK. They can be discussed openly, though it is a very socially unacceptable position to hold and difficult to sustain intellectually in the face of the weight of evidence. Fortunately British society is so far robust enough to allow this without resort to draconian laws.

You post, "No, it is possible to discuss events, wrongdoing, missed opportunities, mistakes and even crimes on a base of established facts." Even when those established facts indicate close parallels in some areas between Nazi Germany and the USSR?

Hitler inherited a capitalist economy, but Nazism was developing it in the direction of state control, as in the USSR. You have to remember that Nazism was still a work in progress when it met its well deserved end, but its direction was clearly towards increasing state control.

You post, "The Soviet union was multi-ethnical state while Germany was in fact mono-ethnical one." The USSR was a multi-ethnic empire. There is no noticeable stampede amongst any of the fourteen other former SSRs for return to rule by Moscow.

Certainly Nazi Germany and the USSR were antagonists over 1941-45, but not over 1939-41.

Yes, "not all dictatorships are identical in nature" but totalitarian ones such as the USSR and Nazi Germany shared many features.

You ask, "Has Nazi Germany much in common with Great Britain under rule of the Lord Protector?" About as much or little as the USSR has.

Diplomatic recognition has the force of legality. You can't both recognize countries and simultaneously claim they are "unlawful entities". Russia may have reneged on this in 1939, but to pretend that it never extended legal recognition to the Baltic States is simply wrong. In the 1920s and 1930s the Baltic States and Finland were very much "lawful entities" with full embassies in Moscow to prove it.

Did I write, "I have reason to defend the Spanish position over Catalonia"? My apologies. I thought I had written, "I have NO reason to defend the Spanish position over Catalonia." I should proof read my text more carefully!

Cheers,

Sid.

[snpol]

Hi Sid.

You post, "In comparison with American imperialism, Putin's Russia is merely regional power as it was called in Washington." True, a regional power which has tried to annexed the territory of two of its neighbours. The USA has declared no aspirations to annex any territory off its neighbours since WWII.

The USA unleashed a lot of wars and invaded a lot of countries around the World. It is aggressive imperialist state. Washington annexed huge territories in Mexico long ago. As for Canada then attempts to invade it also happened long ago. Now Washington de facto annexed a part of Cuba, its neighbour. Washington uses military base in Diego Garcia where the British expelled the whole native population.

Sadly, the fact that both Nazi Germany and the USSR used "malign neglect" to cause the mass deaths of the other's POWs, particularly early in the campaign is "backed by facts and reliable sources". An 85% fatality rate for Germans captured up to 2 February 1942 and the deaths of millions of Soviet POWs in German custody are unmatched in any other theatres by any other countries. They are even unmatched for POWs taken by any of the minor participants on the Eastern Front. Regarding each other, Nazi Germany and the USSR were playing by different rules to almost all other participants in WWII, but similar rules to each other. For example, the USSR had withdrawn from the Hague Conventions and Germany therefore decided that it wasn't constrained by them there either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_F ... ld_War_II)

Although the Soviet Union had not signed the Geneva Convention (1929), it is generally accepted that it considered itself bound by the provisions of the Hague convention.[129] A month after the German invasion in 1941, an offer was made for a reciprocal adherence to Hague convention. This 'note' was left unanswered by Third Reich officials.[130]

Also Germany had to follow the Geneva (1929) convention anyway.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/i ... enDocument

Art. 82. The provisions of the present Convention shall be respected by the High Contracting Parties in all circumstances.
In time of war if one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall, nevertheless, remain binding as between the belligerents who are parties thereto./quote]
As for so called imaginary 'intentional neglect' toward German POWs then without reliable source and facts further discussion is pointless.

[Sid Guttridge]

Double post.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi snpol,

If the Soviet Union had kept to Chapters 1, 2 and 3 of the 1929 Geneva Convention, 85% of German POWs taken before February 1943 would not have died. The total would have been far less. The earlier Hague Conventions had similar provisions.

Chapter 1: ".....conditions shall be the same as for the depot troops of the detaining Power."

Chapter 2: ".....The food ration of prisoners of war shall be equivalent in quantity and quality to that of the depot troops."

If 85% of Soviet "depot troops" also died, you might have a point. Did they? I suspect not.

This is certainly an area where mutually discreditable comparisons between the USSR and Nazi Germany are valid.

Cheers,

Sid.

[snpol]

Hi Sid.

Certainly, there was a "dramatically changed geopolitical environment" after 22 June 1941, at least internationally. However, even in this context it is right to compare the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, where appropriate, and equate them if necessary. The two totalitarian regimes retained many similarities with each other that they did not share with others, both in their structures and their conduct of the war.

It is possible to scrutinize facts but it is forbidden in Russia make public claims of certain type. Previously it was unwritten rule. Now it is written in the Law. As for conclusions then the readers are free to make them themselves. I repeat, it of course bounds the freedom of speech.

No, it is not true that Holocaust denial claims are forbidden in the UK. They can be discussed openly, though it is a very socially unacceptable position to hold and difficult to sustain intellectually in the face of the weight of evidence. Fortunately British society is so far robust enough to allow this without resort to draconian laws.

I know that it is unwritten rule in the UK but some European countries have respective laws.

You post, "No, it is possible to discuss events, wrongdoing, missed opportunities, mistakes and even crimes on a base of established facts." Even when those established facts indicate close parallels in some areas between Nazi Germany and the USSR?

Yes and as I said the readers are free to make conclusions themselves.

Hitler inherited a capitalist economy, but Nazism was developing it in the direction of state control, as in the USSR. You have to remember that Nazism was still a work in progress when it met its well deserved end, but its direction was clearly towards increasing state control.

But still there was capitalism in Nazi Germany.

You ask, "Has Nazi Germany much in common with Great Britain under rule of the Lord Protector?" About as much or little as the USSR has.

I'm happy that you see my point. Of course Great Britain in Cromwell times can not be equated to Nazi Germany while there are some parallels. Let's recall invasion in Ireland, for example. There are some parallels between Nazi Germany and the UK during the Boer war but again it is not right to equate the countries.

Diplomatic recognition has the force of legality. You can't both recognize countries and simultaneously claim they are "unlawful entities". Russia may have reneged on this in 1939, but to pretend that it never extended legal recognition to the Baltic States is simply wrong. In the 1920s and 1930s the Baltic States and Finland were very much "lawful entities" with full embassies in Moscow to prove it.

So Moscow just staged referendums in Baltic states to present the annexations as 'will of the people'. As for 'unlawful entities' then I fancy it was real point of view of Soviet rulers.
As for Finland then there was border dispute ended by the war and the agreement about the new border. Btw, Finland violated it in 1941 as it regarded it enforced by the Soviet union. In the same manner Moscow regarded agreements about independence of Baltic states enforced by external forces when Soviet Russia was weak.

Did I write, "I have reason to defend the Spanish position over Catalonia"? My apologies. I thought I had written, "I have NO reason to defend the Spanish position over Catalonia." I should proof read my text more carefully!

I'm very sorry. It is indeed my fault.
So, should the UK return Gibraltar, the Falklands, the military bases in Cyprus? Have the Irish in NI right for self determination? And had the people of Crimea right for self determination?

[snpol]

Hi Sid.

Hi snpol,

If the Soviet Union had kept to Chapters 1, 2 and 3 of the 1929 Geneva Convention, 85% of German POWs taken before February 1943 would not have died. The total would have been far less. The earlier Hague Conventions had similar provisions.

Chapter 1: ".....conditions shall be the same as for the depot troops of the detaining Power."

Chapter 2: ".....The food ration of prisoners of war shall be equivalent in quantity and quality to that of the depot troops."

If 85% of Soviet "depot troops" also died, you might have a point. Did they? I suspect not.

This is certainly an area where mutually discreditable comparisons between the USSR and Nazi Germany are valid.

The key question is clear - was it intentional neglect of just extraordinary conditions. In January 1943 1000 encircled German soldiers died daily from cold and starvation. And thousands woulds die anyway being captured. Add to it absence of housing due to total destruction caused by the Germans, long way on foot in -30C frost. Hardly many would survive because they surrendered too late. But it was exceptional situation.
So have you reliable source that confirms namely intentional neglect?

[wm]

There is another option: Preserving national territorial integrity but also create ethnic federations.

Do we have an example of such a unicorn? A federation where minorities are allowed to secede?
Britain is one but the Scots are rocking the boat more and more violently and probably it will capsize eventually.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi snpol,

You post, "The USA unleashed a lot of wars and invaded a lot of countries around the World. It is aggressive imperialist state. Washington annexed huge territories in Mexico long ago. As for Canada then attempts to invade it also happened long ago. Now Washington de facto annexed a part of Cuba, its neighbour. Washington uses military base in Diego Garcia where the British expelled the whole native population." Not entirely accurate (I can detail some errors and omissions, if you wish) but to some degree true. However all are "Whataboutism". What the US may or may not have done in the past does nothing to justify or disqualify what Russia does elsewhere today.

If "it is generally accepted that (the USSR) considered itself bound by the provisions of the Hague convention", why did it not do so?

You post, "It is possible to scrutinize facts but it is forbidden in Russia make public claims of certain type. Previously it was unwritten rule. Now it is written in the Law. As for conclusions then the readers are free to make them themselves." It was better left as an unwritten rule. Now readers can't be free to make conclusions themselves because they can't be exposed to the full range of opinions, just those officially approved.

Yes, ".....some European countries have respective laws." The UK was blessed in that, except peripherally in the Channel Islands, the so-called "Holocaust" did not touch its soil, so abstract discussion is easier here than in occupied Europe. However, there is a danger of making Holocaust-deniers, whose arguments are easily countered on the evidence, into freedom of speech martyrs.

Certainly, there was "still there was capitalism in Nazi Germany" But that was not part of the Nazi project any more than liberal democracy was. The Nazi project was one of Totalitarian control of all of society in a manner resembling the Soviet model, not democratic free market liberal capitalism.

It is ....."right to equate the countries" where appropriate. What is not right is to forbid it, where appropriate, as this legislation appears to. From outside, the parallels between Nazi Germany and the USSR are often more striking than the differences.

Yes, "Moscow just staged referendums in Baltic states to present the annexations as 'will of the people'." So did Hitler in the 1930s. This applies even where, as in Austria or Crimea, they were likely to win an independent referendum anyway. Totalitarian powers are not prepared to leave referenda to chance and the uncertainties of public opinion. They need mass acclamation and approval because their systems have no concept of "loyal opposition".

Must go. I'll finish later.

Cheers,

Sid.

[snpol]

Hi Sid.

You post, "The USA unleashed a lot of wars and invaded a lot of countries around the World. It is aggressive imperialist state. Washington annexed huge territories in Mexico long ago. As for Canada then attempts to invade it also happened long ago. Now Washington de facto annexed a part of Cuba, its neighbour. Washington uses military base in Diego Garcia where the British expelled the whole native population." Not entirely accurate (I can detail some errors and omissions, if you wish) but to some degree true. However all are "Whataboutism". What the US may or may not have done in the past does nothing to justify or disqualify what Russia does elsewhere today.

So what special Russia has done that the USA or its client state Israel never did in recent years?
Do you support the concept of double standards - For the USA/Israel and for Russia?

If "it is generally accepted that (the USSR) considered itself bound by the provisions of the Hague convention", why did it not do so?

The Hague (1907) convention contains the procedure to withdraw from it. The Soviet union didn't follow the procedure and thus at least from formal point of view remained bounded by the convention. And I repeat it, Germany that signed Geneva (1929) convention had to follow it during the war with the Soviet union anyway.

You post, "It is possible to scrutinize facts but it is forbidden in Russia make public claims of certain type. Previously it was unwritten rule. Now it is written in the Law. As for conclusions then the readers are free to make them themselves." It was better left as an unwritten rule. Now readers can't be free to make conclusions themselves because they can't be exposed to the full range of opinions, just those officially approved.

In the UK it is not acceptable to deny the Holocaust but it is merely unwritten rule while in many countries such denials are punished by the law. It is up to lawmakers to decide what it right or wrong.

Yes, ".....some European countries have respective laws." The UK was blessed in that, except peripherally in the Channel Islands, the so-called "Holocaust" did not touch its soil, so abstract discussion is easier here than in occupied Europe. However, there is a danger of making Holocaust-deniers, whose arguments are easily countered on the evidence, into freedom of speech martyrs.

I would not use expressions as 'so called Holocaust'. The Holocaust indeed happened and it was a big tragedy. But as for details then there are too many unanswered questions and not properly proved suggestions. For example, still it is not clear how many were killed using gas chambers and had they ever widely being used. There are many doubtful claims and it is being used by Holocaust deniers.

Certainly, there was "still there was capitalism in Nazi Germany" But that was not part of the Nazi project any more than liberal democracy was. The Nazi project was one of Totalitarian control of all of society in a manner resembling the Soviet model, not democratic free market liberal capitalism.

Hitler won democratic elections and if Germany won the war then no doubt he would be elected again by the Germans in free and fair elections. Criminal gangs sometimes have certain form of 'democracy', they elect 'democratically' their ringleader. So Germany after victorious war could return to democratic form of rule. Compare, there was democracy in the USA in the first half of 19th century and slavery at the same time. So Germany could enslave the whole world and be 'democracy' at the same time.

Yes, "Moscow just staged referendums in Baltic states to present the annexations as 'will of the people'." So did Hitler in the 1930s. This applies even where, as in Austria or Crimea, they were likely to win an independent referendum anyway. Totalitarian powers are not prepared to leave referenda to chance and the uncertainties of public opinion. They need mass acclamation and approval because their systems have no concept of "loyal opposition".

Agreed.