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

[wm]

But according to the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg, 1946):

by 1939 these rules laid down in the Convention were recognised by all civilised nations and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war.

i.e., metamorphosed from conventional into customary law.

[snpol]

Hi Sid.

Comparative history is a useful tool and you are free to start such subjects on AHF. However, this topic is specific to one subject area.
Whataboutism is not a useful tool. Whataboutism is a device used to divert attention from an uncomfortable subject. It is a diversionary tactic.

We have agree to disagree on this point. During intelligent, thoughtful discussion it is not right to forbid this or that type of arguments.
For example
Argument - The Soviet union economically cooperated with Nazi Germany before 22 June 1941
Counter argument - The Soviet union was not alone. Many countries did it and even cooperated military with Hitler, were his allies.
Argument - The Soviet union didn't attack Germany when France was attacked by Hitler
Counter argument - The USA also didn't declare war to Germany. Hitler himself did it 11 December 1941.
And so on and so forth. Like you it or not I would like to use this type counter arguments further.

The Soviet Union was little different in substance before 22 June 1941 and after 22 June 1941.

It is no more than your personal point of view, just an opinion.

It still had a personality cult around an authoritarian head of state and sham democratic institutions. It was totalitarian in nature, trying to control the lives of its citizens from cradle to grave by allowing no internal opposition and having state trades unions, mass official youth movements, mass state organizations for women, a disregard for individual and wider human rights, imprisonment without due process, mass deaths in state custody, a legal system subordinated to political requirements, secret police organizations, etc.,etc..

That time it was not something exceptional. Many countries were just dictatorships - in Latin America for example. Franko in Spain springs in mind. While the Soviet union was totalitarian state driven by the communist ideology there was a lot of differences between Communist idea and Nazism.
So nature of the regimes in Germany and the Soviet union were absolutely different.

What is the justification for suspending criticism of the USSR over 1941-1945 if so little changed?

Facts based criticism is not forbidden. It is forbidden to express publicly some opinions. Yes, as I said previously, it is a restriction of freedom of speech.

What is more, this entire list (and more) also applies to Nazi Germany. How can one not equate the USSR and Nazi Germany on many levels?

I can. It is not so hard thing.

From the outside the struggle on the Eastern Front looks like one between two quite similar Totalitarian powers.

It is just your private point of view.

You post, "The Communist idea is not that primitive as Hitler style National socialism." I agree. However, the Hitler/Nazi practice had multiple similarities in application with the Stalin/Soviet practice (See above).

But not on all points. The Soviet union has internationalism as an official ideology while German nationalism was German one.

You post, "Baltic states and other mentioned territories were regarded as parts of former Russian Empire, as unlawful entities or unlawfully annexed territories." This is not so. For example, Latvia and Soviet Russia signed a Peace Treaty on 11 August 1920. In Article 2 the latter "unreservedly recognises the independence and sovereignty of the Latvian State and voluntarily and forever renounces all sovereign rights... to the Latvian people and territory."

Initially the Soviet union was too weak and had to agree for independence of some newly created states. That time international agreements were violated frequently.

The USSR can't have it both ways. It claimed that it was not the successor to Czarist Russia and so did not have to adhere to any of the treaties signed by the Czarist Russia (including the Hague Conventions) or honour Czarist Russia's international debts.

And what is your point? Yes, the Soviet union didn't recognise treaties signed by Czarist Russia and what?

You post, "Alas, the POWs captured in Stalingrad were exposed to extremely low temperatures. There were shortage in food, clothing, housing, transport, medical care." I have already said as much above. The Germans used exactly the same excuses about "shortage in food, clothing, housing, transport and medical care" to explain why several million Soviet POWs died in their custody in the winter of 1941-42. (I have taken part in more than one thread here on AHF questioning that excuse as well.) If you pursue this reasoning, you are, in effect, drawing another parallel between the USSR and Nazi Germany over 1941-45.

And what is your point?

[Peter89]

Hi wm,

And therein lies the problem. Because the USSR was not a signatory to the Hague Conventions (which it had renounced along with all other Czarist-signed treaties) Nazi Germany felt it was not constrained by the Hague Conventions on the Eastern Front either.

Cheers,

Sid.

prisoners of war shall be treated as regards board, lodging, and clothing on the same footing as the troops of the Government who captured them.
Hague IV

A quick note on the international law of wars: World War II was unique in many sense. For example, the interwar Geneva Protocols (1925, signed by Germany in 1929) prohibited the use of poison gases, which Nazi Germany really refrained from during the war. However, using poision gas on a belligerent's own civilians - although not covered by the protocols -, was a crime against humanity, no doubt about that.

In my opinion, for the crimes of World War 2, the international law of wars should not have served as a ceiling, but as a floor. From this point of view, in my opinion, the postwar military tribunals correctly deviated from the written law.

At the same time it is true that the victor's justice was tainted by double standards and by the obvious effort from (mostly) the Soviet side to cover up their own crimes (in many cases, also against their own civilians). However, that's only an argument that we should go further than those tribunals did, and not necessarily cling to the written laws of the day, but instead, written and unwritten moral principles. That's the only way to prevent a system or war which would legalize even the most bestial deeds.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi snpol,

You post, "Argument - The Soviet union economically cooperated with Nazi Germany before 22 June 1941
Counter argument - The Soviet union was not alone. Many countries did it and even cooperated military with Hitler, were his allies."

That is not a "counter argument", because it does nothing to contradict the original argument. It is purely a diversionary tactic deployed to avoid answering the original argument. Indeed, it fails to engage the original argument at all.

You post, that, "The Soviet Union was little different in substance before 22 June 1941 and after 22 June 1941." is just my opinion. OK, in what substantive ways did the Soviet Union differ before and after 22 June 1941?

You post, "That time it was not something exceptional." So you agree with the incomplete list of similarities between Nazi Germany and the USSR?

You post, "Many countries were just dictatorships - in Latin America for example." Yup, "just dictatorships", but not totalitarian dictatorships.

You post, "While the Soviet union was totalitarian state driven by the communist ideology there was a lot of differences between Communist idea and Nazism." These were what?

You post, "So nature of the regimes in Germany and the Soviet union were absolutely different." Demonstrably not. They had numerous similarities, some of which I just listed and none of which you have yet contradicted.

You post, "From the outside the struggle on the Eastern Front looks like one between two quite similar Totalitarian powers" is my private point of view. No, it seems to be pretty much consensus outside Russia and Belarus. The argument elsewhere is not over whether Nazi Germany and the USSR were totalitarian powers, but just over which was worse.

You post, "The Soviet union has internationalism as an official ideology while German nationalism was German one." Yup - officially. But after June 1941 the USSR fell back heavily on Russian nationalism, recruited the Orthodox Church to support the cause, gave officers their epaulettes back, disbanded the Comintern, etc., etc.. Almost everywhere else countries were fighting WWII, but in the USSR it was the Great Patriotic War, which doesn't sound very internationalist to me.

You post, "Initially the Soviet union was too weak and had to agree for independence of some newly created states." I don't recall Latvia being a particular threat to Russia at any stage! The fact remained that Soviet Russia recognized Latvia's independence in a treaty, which is directly contrary to what you claimed.

You post, "That time international agreements were violated frequently." Yup, mostly by Nazi Germany. In deploying this argument, too, you are implying another similarity between the USSR and Nazi Germany - a flagrant disregard for international agreements with neighbouring minor states.

You ask what I meant by, "The USSR can't have it both ways. It claimed that it was not the successor to Czarist Russia and so did not have to adhere to any of the treaties signed by the Czarist Russia (including the Hague Conventions) or honour Czarist Russia's international debts." I meant that you appear to be suggesting that the USSR is inconsistent. You suggested that it wanted to be the successor to the Imperial Russian Empire in territorial terms by ruling over unwilling non-Russian peoples, but it also renounced all the Imperial Russian Empire's treaties and international debts. This is cherry-picking on a grand scale.

You ask what my point was in writing "The Germans used exactly the same excuses about "shortage in food, clothing, housing, transport and medical care" to explain why several million Soviet POWs died in their custody in the winter of 1941-42. If you pursue this reasoning, you are, in effect, drawing another parallel between the USSR and Nazi Germany over 1941-45."

It is self explanatory. In using the same rationale to justify very high death rates of German POWs in Soviet hands after Stalingrad in the winter of 1942-43 as the Nazi apologists use to justify the very high death rates of Red Army POWs in Wehrmacht hands in the winter of 1941-42, you are drawing another parallel between the two totalitarian regimes that you say were very different.

Cheers,

Sid .

[snpol]

Hi Sid.

You post, "Argument - The Soviet union economically cooperated with Nazi Germany before 22 June 1941
Counter argument - The Soviet union was not alone. Many countries did it and even cooperated military with Hitler, were his allies."

That is not a "counter argument", because it does nothing to contradict the original argument. It is purely a diversionary tactic deployed to avoid answering the original argument. Indeed, it fails to engage the original argument at all.

I meant that it is not correct to accuse the Soviet union in any imaginary crimes only because it cooperated with Germany before 22 June 1941. Many countries did the same things. For example Poland participated in division of Czechoslovakia. UK/France cooperated with Hitler politically and diplomatically signing the Munich agreement. In this context we could speak about mistakes but not crimes. Of course the Soviet leadership made a lot of mistakes. Sweden supplied Germany with critically important goods and materials during the war and it was not even a mistake because Hitler could just invade and occupy Sweden.

You post, that, "The Soviet Union was little different in substance before 22 June 1941 and after 22 June 1941." is just my opinion. OK, in what substantive ways did the Soviet Union differ before and after 22 June 1941?

I have answered this question (at least partially). I recall the Holocaust, racial laws, aggressive nationalism in Germany, plans to enslave or exterminate the whole peoples. It's important to note that after 22 June 1941 the Soviet union became an ally of the UK and later the USA. So (for example) joint Soviet/British invasion in Iran can not be compared with invasions conducted by Hitler. So Soviet invasion in Iran and German invasions were absolutely different in nature.
As for 30's then say me please in what substantive ways did Germany, France, the UK differ? France and Great Britain had vast colonial empires, while Germany hadn't. And it is in fact the only substantive difference. Hitler was elected democratically. It is a sad fact but Nazism was a product of Western type democracy in Germany.

You post, "While the Soviet union was totalitarian state driven by the communist ideology there was a lot of differences between Communist idea and Nazism." These were what?

I dare not to lecture you because you may find respective information without any problem. I note only one very important feature. Nazism is an extreme form of aggressive nationalism that uses genocide as a tool while communism is an internationalist ideology. Nazists tried to make happy only German people while Communists saw thier ideal in the brotherhood of peoples of all nations and races.

You post, "From the outside the struggle on the Eastern Front looks like one between two quite similar Totalitarian powers" is my private point of view. No, it seems to be pretty much consensus outside Russia and Belarus. The argument elsewhere is not over whether Nazi Germany and the USSR were totalitarian powers, but just over which was worse.

From 1941 the Soviet union and the UK coordinated their actions. You may disagree but from London the struggle on the Eastern Front looked as a struggle of British ally with British enemy.

You post, "The Soviet union has internationalism as an official ideology while German nationalism was German one." Yup - officially. But after June 1941 the USSR fell back heavily on Russian nationalism, recruited the Orthodox Church to support the cause, gave officers their epaulettes back, disbanded the Comintern, etc., etc.. Almost everywhere else countries were fighting WWII, but in the USSR it was the Great Patriotic War, which doesn't sound very internationalist to me.

It is the main point that foreigners fail to understand. For them WW2 was just a war - one of many. For Russian people it was a disaster. In fact the history was divided on two periods - before and after. There was another Patriotic war in Russian history - Napoleon invasion happened in 1812. That time and in 1941 there was real threat to the very existence of the Russian people. In fact the Soviet union was Russia by another name. So it was logical to appeal to Russian patriotism especially taking into account that the Russians are good soldiers (and Germans are good soldiers as well). The war on the Eastern front was an epic struggle of almost equal nations in their desire to win the battle. Russian Orthodox Church was and is a part of Russian culture. So Stalin (who recieved at time Orthodox Christian education) used the Church as a tool. Any responsible ruler would do the same thing. However, the Communist party remained communist and didn't change its ideology.

You post, "Initially the Soviet union was too weak and had to agree for independence of some newly created states." I don't recall Latvia being a particular threat to Russia at any stage! The fact remained that Soviet Russia recognized Latvia's independence in a treaty, which is directly contrary to what you claimed.

Great Britain recognised independence of Ireland (the whole island) a century ago and immediately reannexed its Northern part. The Soviet Russia being weak military and economically had to agree for independence of Latvia but just several years after it reannexed Baltic states. They were very important from strategical point of view. Hitler didn't recognise neutral status of Belgium (for example). So he would not recognise neutral status of Baltic states as well. Thus Moscow had to establish military control over Baltics. I recall in this context joint occupation of Iran. It was made due to strategical importance of the country jointly by the UK and the Soviet union.

I meant that you appear to be suggesting that the USSR is inconsistent. You suggested that it wanted to be the successor to the Imperial Russian Empire in territorial terms by ruling over unwilling non-Russian peoples, but it also renounced all the Imperial Russian Empire's treaties and international debts.

I don't see here any contradiction. It is real politics. Countries use to act in own interests.

You ask what my point was in writing "The Germans used exactly the same excuses about "shortage in food, clothing, housing, transport and medical care" to explain why several million Soviet POWs died in their custody in the winter of 1941-42. If you pursue this reasoning, you are, in effect, drawing another parallel between the USSR and Nazi Germany over 1941-45."

Soviet POWs were treated badly by Germans during the whole war (from start to end) and no matter what excuses did they use. By contrast the Soviet side treated German POWs in much more human way and there was only one special case. Unexpectedly very big number of POWs appeared in Soviet hand in Stalingrad during extreme low temperatures. Soviet command just hadn't enough resources to handle so big number of POws properly. But I repeat - it was isolated special case.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi snpol,

You post, "....it is not correct to accuse the Soviet union in any imaginary crimes only because it cooperated with Germany before 22 June 1941." I agree and nobody here is.

I asked, ".....in what substantive ways did the Soviet Union differ before and after 22 June 1941?" You have answered a different question. What is your answer to this question?

You post, ".....joint Soviet/British invasion in Iran can not be compared with invasions conducted by Hitler." It certainly cannot be equated, as both countries had no territorial claims on Iran and left after the war. However, this is entirely different to Hitler and Stalin's occupations and wars of conquest over 1939-45, which were designed to be permanent.

You ask, "As for 30's then say me please in what substantive ways did Germany, France, the UK differ?" France and the UK were liberal democracies which changed government regularly through open elections. Germany and the USSR, by contrast, had no open elections once the Nazis and Communists gained power. The latter were both authoritarian, totalitarian societies, with all the commonalities I mentioned above (and more).

You post, "Nazism is an extreme form of aggressive nationalism that uses genocide as a tool while communism is an internationalist ideology. Nazists tried to make happy only German people while Communists saw their ideal in the brotherhood of peoples of all nations and races." Yup, that is the theory, but in fact the USSR was not internationalist. It was a continuation of the Russian Empire under a different name. You have yourself above used Russian imperial precedents to justify Soviet actions.

You post, "You may disagree but from London the struggle on the Eastern Front looked as a struggle of British ally with British enemy." Churchill caught the reality well in Parliament, " If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." For "hell" read "USSR". For "devil" read "Stalin". The USSR did not become an ally of the UK out of principle or proactively. That came about entirely through German, not Soviet, actions.

You post, "For Russian people it was a disaster." Yes, and a disaster to a considerable degree of the USSR's own making. Furthermore, if it was a disaster for the Russians, it was even worse for the Ukrainians, Belarusians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians and Moldovans.

You post, "Great Britain recognised independence of Ireland (the whole island) a century ago and immediately reannexed its Northern part." Nope. That is not what happened.

You post, that the Baltic States were strategically important to the USSR. So what? And, if so, why wasn't their independence restored after the defeat of Nazi Germany? Why did the Soviet Union not respect the autonomy of their populations?

So, your fundamental justification for Russian/Soviet imperialism is "real politics". This was also Hitler's philosophy. Another Soviet/Nazi parallel.

You post, "Soviet POWs were treated badly by Germans during the whole war (from start to end) and no matter what excuses did they use." True, but matters were at their worst over the winter of 1941-42, when most died.

After Stalingrad at least 85% of all German POWS taken since June 1941 died. If it was, as you contend, "one special case", it was a heck of a large one!

Your excuse for the massive death rates of German POWs after Stalingrad of "....command just hadn't enough resources to handle so big number of POws properly." is exactly the same one that is advanced by apologists for the Nazis over the deaths of several million Soviet POWs in German custody over the winter of 1941-42. As I said above, "If you pursue this reasoning, you are, in effect, drawing another parallel between the USSR and Nazi Germany over 1941-45."

Cheers,

Sid.

[snpol]

Hi Sid.

I asked, ".....in what substantive ways did the Soviet Union differ before and after 22 June 1941?" You have answered a different question. What is your answer to this question?

The Soviet union itself, the communist regime remained unchanged after 22 June 1941. But the environment dramatically changed, military and geopolitical landscape changed. Germany was not attacked from outside while the Soviet union was a victim of bald aggression. The status of victim of aggression was the main difference.

You post, ".....joint Soviet/British invasion in Iran can not be compared with invasions conducted by Hitler." It certainly cannot be equated, as both countries had no territorial claims on Iran and left after the war. However, this is entirely different to Hitler and Stalin's occupations and wars of conquest over 1939-45, which were designed to be permanent.

Let's look at the historical context. Germany and the Soviet union were not only 2 countries in the World that tried to expand their territories. That time it was common practice. The UK for example had vast colonial empire. Great Britain waged numerous wars of conquest for centuries. Personally I don't see difference between the Boer war and Hitlers invasion in Poland except one very important feature. Hitler planned to enslave and exterminate the whole peoples, not only to conquer respective territories.

You ask, "As for 30's then say me please in what substantive ways did Germany, France, the UK differ?" France and the UK were liberal democracies which changed government regularly through open elections. Germany and the USSR, by contrast, had no open elections once the Nazis and Communists gained power. The latter were both authoritarian, totalitarian societies, with all the commonalities I mentioned above (and more).

Hitler came to power in 1933 and until that point Germany also (as France or the UK) was a democracy.

You post, "Nazism is an extreme form of aggressive nationalism that uses genocide as a tool while communism is an internationalist ideology. Nazists tried to make happy only German people while Communists saw their ideal in the brotherhood of peoples of all nations and races." Yup, that is the theory, but in fact the USSR was not internationalist. It was a continuation of the Russian Empire under a different name. You have yourself above used Russian imperial precedents to justify Soviet actions.

Hitler was not internationalist even in theory. It is very important feature.

You post, "You may disagree but from London the struggle on the Eastern Front looked as a struggle of British ally with British enemy." Churchill caught the reality well in Parliament, " If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." For "hell" read "USSR". For "devil" read "Stalin". The USSR did not become an ally of the UK out of principle or proactively. That came about entirely through German, not Soviet, actions.

The devil is in the details and the main detail here is apparent fact that the Soviet union was British ally, like you it or not.

You post, "For Russian people it was a disaster." Yes, and a disaster to a considerable degree of the USSR's own making. Furthermore, if it was a disaster for the Russians, it was even worse for the Ukrainians, Belarusians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians and Moldovans.

Btw, some Ukrainians, Latvians (and others) were members of waffen SS units. So they themselves took part in the disaster.

You post, that the Baltic States were strategically important to the USSR. So what? And, if so, why wasn't their independence restored after the defeat of Nazi Germany? Why did the Soviet Union not respect the autonomy of their populations?

Baltic states gained their independence with help from foreign forces including the UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... ed_Kingdom
Soviet Russia was in fact forced to recognise their independence and later when the UK was unable interfere Moscow restored its control over Baltic states. Let's imagine that Soviet forces helped the IRA to establish full control over Norther Ireland. Would London try to restore its control over Ulster in proper moment? No doubt.

So, your fundamental justification for Russian/Soviet imperialism is "real politics". This was also Hitler's philosophy. Another Soviet/Nazi parallel.

There was also British imperialism and it was founded also on "real politics" or not?

You post, "Soviet POWs were treated badly by Germans during the whole war (from start to end) and no matter what excuses did they use." True, but matters were at their worst over the winter of 1941-42, when most died.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_mi ... ers_of_war

It is estimated that at least 3.3 million Soviet POWs died in Nazi custody, out of 5.7 million. This figure represents a total of 57% of all Soviet POWs and it may be contrasted with 8,300 out of 231,000 British and U.S. prisoners, or 3.6%.

The most deaths took place between June 1941 and January 1942, when the Germans killed an estimated 2.8 million Soviet POWs primarily through deliberate starvation,[7] exposure, and summary execution.

Moscow is not accused in deliberate starvation, exposure and summary execution of German POWs. It is the key point.

[Pods]

Hitler planned to enslave and exterminate the whole peoples, not only to conquer respective territories.

Really the systematic extermination of Nazi Germany applied only to the Jews. There is no evidence of the extermination of "all peoples".

[LineDoggie]

Moscow is not accused in deliberate starvation, exposure and summary execution of German POWs. It is the key point.

Russian Whataboutism again

of course Moscows not accused who would make the complaint where it would be investigated? certainly not the UN, and at Nuremberg they successfully got Katyn blamed on the Germans even though they knew they were the murderers

[David Thompson]

LineDoggie -- The IMT at Nuremberg heard testimony on Katyn, and then ignored it, convicting no one of the massacre. This has been discussed here before.

Katyn - 1944 Soviet special commission report
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=57175
Katyn -- the IMT spat
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=57145
Katyn -- the 1943 O'Malley report
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=57147
Katyn – 1952 US Congressional findings
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=57050
Katyn -- Maps
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=57045
The Katyn testimony of Eugen Oberhauser
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=56995
The Katyn testimony of Boris Bazilevskiy
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=56997
The Katyn testimony of Victor Il’ich Prosorovski
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=57002
The Katyn testimony of marko Antonov Markov
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=57000
The Katyn testimony of Reinhard von Eichborn
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=56993
The Katyn testimony of Friedrich Ahrens
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=56992
Katyn, Injustice and the IMT
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=44639
Katyn mass murder question
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=45481
The Soviet war crimes against Poland: Katyn 1940
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=18124
Document related to the Polish POWs in USSR 1940
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=28090
US report about Katyn delivered to Poland?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=19866
KATYN - an un-punished war crime !
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=15072
Soviet Responsibility at Katyn: pro and con
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=56940
Perpetrators of the massacre in Katyn forest
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=66696
Katyn Massacre Documents
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=710962
German ammo at Katyn forest
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=41962

Germans Hanged for Katyn
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=26603
A False Confession Made by a German POW under Torture?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=18473
Germans executed for Katyn
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=15730

[gebhk]

In all of this there seems to be only one argument on topic:

There were two murderers. They happily indulged in a life of crime both jointly and separately for many years. Then one attacked the other. This proves the attacked party is not like the other one at all.

Good luck with that one.

The rest is just irrelevant whataboutism. I am sure Genghis Khan was a very nasty man but what does that have to do with a comparison of Hitler and Stalin or the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany? And the problem here with whataboutism is that it strengthens the parallels rather than diminishing them.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi snpol,

You replied, "The Soviet union itself, the communist regime remained unchanged after 22 June 1941. But the environment dramatically changed, military and geopolitical landscape changed. Germany was not attacked from outside while the Soviet union was a victim of bald aggression. The status of victim of aggression was the main difference." Exactly. All the changes were externally induced, not internally generated. 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, "Hitler came to power in 1933 and until that point Germany also (as France or the UK) was a democracy." Yup. Exactly my point. Before Hitler came to power, Germany was a liberal democracy, as were France and the UK. After Hitler and the Nazis came to power, Germany became a totalitarian dictatorship, like the USSR.

You post, "Hitler was not internationalist even in theory. It is very important feature." Yes, but so was the USSR in practice. Make no mistake, I think the motivations for the creation of the USSR were infinitely more noble than those of Nazism, yet the results in practice were often similar.

You post, ".....the Soviet union was British ally, like you it or not." I like it, as the war was probably unwinnable for the UK without Soviet sacrifice (and US participation). However, the fact remains that this was a situation forced on the USSR by Germany, not some noble crusade of principle taken up by the USSR voluntarily.

You post, "Btw, some Ukrainians, Latvians (and others) were members of waffen SS units." Yup, as it was the only remaining route by which they could take up arms to defend their countries against Soviet occupation. They were nationalists, not Nazis or Communists.

Moreover, as independent nations, none of them did anything to provoke being carved up and occupied by the USSR or Nazi Germany. Indeed, the Baltic States didn't even have a military alliance amongst themselves, let alone with outsiders. So no, while it is true that some of them, "took part in the disaster" they did nothing collectively or individually to provoke it in the first place.

You post, "Baltic states gained their independence with help from foreign forces including the UK...." So? The issue is not who helped but whether they were entitled to national autonomy. They themselves thought "Yes", Imperial Russia and the USSR both though "No". I would suggest that if Russians are entitled to national autonomy, so are their neighbours.

You post, "There was also British imperialism and it was founded also on "real politics" or not?" Yes, but does this make it right? The UK is half a century into post-Imperialism. It appears that Putin's Russia hasn't yet entered its own post-Imperialist phase.

You post, "Moscow is not accused in deliberate starvation, exposure and summary execution of German POWs. It is the key point." Actually, it is. I consider that both Nazi Germany used "malign neglect" to cause the mass deaths of the other's POWs, particularly early in the campaign. Both claimed they lack the resources to feed, clothe and house them, yet to do so was their responsibility. It is an area where Nazi Germany and the USSR seem to have initially been similarly callous and inhumane. I put this down to their shared Totalitarianism.

Cheers,

Sid.

[gebhk]

Hi Sid

They were nationalists, not Nazis or Communists

I bit of an oversimplification, I would suggest some most certainly were Nazis or shared many elements of Nazi ideology. However, surely the point is that this is wholly irrelevant to the topic.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi gebhk,

As Nazism was a self definedly a German nationalist phenomenon, I would suggest that by definition non-Germans can't be Nazis. However, they certainly could share some policies.

Cheers,

Sid.

[gebhk]

As Nazism was a self definedly a German nationalist phenomenon, I would suggest that by definition non-Germans can't be Nazis.

Isn't that slightly splitting hairs, especially given that there were numerous non-German members of the NSDAP? And that 'German'ness' and 'Germany' were ever adequately defined by the Nazis? In any event, we seem to be getting drawn into a whataboutist discussion...