Why has the West boycotted the parade by those who saved the world from Nazism.

gandalf · 17-05-2015 01:40AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because that wasn't the terms of the alliance. Doesn't make it less of an alliance though. If two countries join up to divide a third that's an alliance. No matter how you want to spin it.

Eggy is sitting there with his fingers in his ears going "Lalalalalalala".

Of course it was an alliance, any sane and logical person sees it for what it was.

Grayson · 17-05-2015 06:32AM

Egginacup wrote: »

No. You're not getting away with that either. A few posters earlier made the statement that the USSR ALLIED themselves with Nazi Germany. They tried to slip in this false claims under the guise of the non-aggression pact in August 1939. It was not an alliance so please don't say it was. The people who made this claim haven't had the balls to come forward and admit that all they were doing in making such an assertion was shitstirring. Instead they are now silent allowing people like you to play their game for them.

I'm not denying that the USSR chewed up half of Poiand while the Nazis took the other half but this was not an alliance and anyone who says so is lying.

And for you to state that the USSR allied with Nazi Germany to invade Poland is the same as saying that Britain allied with the Germans to invade Czechoslovakia .... just that the Germans took the place over but the Brits allied with them in the invasion.

All these farcical assertions still don't answer the question as to why western governments snubbed the Moscow celebrations of the defeat of Nazism. People are bringing up idiotic reasons like the Soviets fought with the Finns or some utter crap. The most popular narrative touted is that the Russians have invaded Ukraine. That old chestnut is still being vomitted out. Yet Kerry goes to Moscow 3 days after the parades. Some boycott of the Russians!

It's a limited alliance. It was only for one reason and only for a short time. But it was an alliance and because of it the second world war started

The russians invaded eastern poland (maybe their troops were just on holiday?). They committed horrific war crimes whilst there like the Katyn massacre.

Later the Russians did suffer tremendously under the nazi invasion No-one forgets what the einzatgruppen did in eastern europe. The Russians lost more people than the rest of the world combined.

However the red army then marched westwards and perpetrated horrors of it's own. These are all well known and many have been mentioned here. Eastern europe lived under it's domination for decades.

Now that kinda got swept under the carpet. Just like we don't hold Germans responsible for what their grandfathers did we don't hold Russia to blame either. Russia even apologised for some of the stuff they did like the Katyn Massacre.

Russia is now celebrating victory day with a military march. Strangely in the west we don't do that. On poppy day you don't see a nuclear weapon being driven through westminister. On VE or VJ day the Americans don't march a load of tanks through the streets.
The EU doesn't declare a sphere o influence outside it's own boarders. The EU recognises the right of self determination for all people. If Ukraine wants or doesn't want to join the EU, it's up to the Ukraine. No-one in Europe has ever said it was our country to influence. Putin has.

He did invade another country. You might be blindly oblivious to the troops that are wandering in and out of eastern Ukraine. You might be able to say that a KGB officer who lead the rebels was only on holiday. Or that Rusian soldiers have been interviewed in Eastern Ukraine. Or that all the rebel leaders have openly admitted that they have both material help and actual russian troops assisting them. You might be able to ignore the paid actors on Russian TV who talk about children being crucified in Ukraine. You might even be able to ignore such an amount of war mongering that the Russian population now largely believe that the West wants to destroy Russia out of some kind of jealously. And you can even ignore the soviet stars and flags of Stalin that adorn red square.

But surely you can't ignore the fact that Putin has admitted that he sent troops into Crimea, part of a neutral country that Russia had signed an agreement never to invade.
It's that simple. Russia invaded a neutral country on it's boarder. That's why people are staying away from Russia.

Western leaders in the main managed to suck it up and go to the olympics in Sochi. This is despite Russia's horrendous human rights records, massive corruption, it's homophobic agenda and even going so far as to label aid agencies as foreign agents aka spies.

The line that was crossed was when they invaded and admitted invading a neutral country.

And yes, that is a reason worth staying away from Red Square for. Between the nazi's and the soviets there's so much **** in the past that's just not worth bringing up. But what Russia is doing today, that can't be ignored and we shouldn't be giving the Putin regime any validity.

17-05-2015 06:37AM

Egginacup wrote: »

The people who made this claim haven't had the balls to come forward and admit that all they were doing in making such an assertion was shitstirring. Instead they are now silent allowing people like you to play their game for them.

Nasty internet gossip and rumours from those hiding behind anonymous names and they don't "have the balls" to say it to poor Russia's face. You tell 'em, Egginacup.

Elmer Blooker · 17-05-2015 11:01AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because that wasn't the terms of the alliance. Doesn't make it less of an alliance though. If two countries join up to divide a third that's an alliance. No matter how you want to spin it.

The Molotov-Rippentrop non-aggression pact was NOT signed with the sole intention of carving up Poland but it is historical fact that was the result of this pact. It was always Hitler's intention to destroy the Soviet Union and the Molotov-Rippentrop pact was nothing more than delaying tactics by Hitler as he turned his attention to the invasion of western Europe in May/June 1940.
It wasn't an alliance it was a non-aggression pact.
Please spare me the accusations that I'm some sort of apologist for Stalinism, I'm merely stating historical facts.

Grayson · 17-05-2015 12:59PM

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The Molotov-Rippentrop non-aggression pact was NOT signed with the sole intention of carving up Poland but it is historical fact that was the result of this pact. It was always Hitler's intention to destroy the Soviet Union and the Molotov-Rippentrop pact was nothing more than delaying tactics by Hitler as he turned his attention to the invasion of western Europe in May/June 1940.
It wasn't an alliance it was a non-aggression pact.
Please spare me the accusations that I'm some sort of apologist for Stalinism, I'm merely stating historical facts.

For Stalin it was a delaying tactic too. He always knew that Hitler would go after the soviet union (although he believed it would be later than he actually did). It was however a temporary alliance. And Stalin knew it would lead to Hitler invading the west. Both sides knew this going in.

Iwasfrozen · 17-05-2015 03:11PM

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The Molotov-Rippentrop non-aggression pact was NOT signed with the sole intention of carving up Poland but it is historical fact that was the result of this pact. It was always Hitler's intention to destroy the Soviet Union and the Molotov-Rippentrop pact was nothing more than delaying tactics by Hitler as he turned his attention to the invasion of western Europe in May/June 1940.
It wasn't an alliance it was a non-aggression pact.
Please spare me the accusations that I'm some sort of apologist for Stalinism, I'm merely stating historical facts.

I never said the pact was an alliance but the invasion certainly was.

Eugene Norman · 17-05-2015 05:18PM

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

The Molotov-Rippentrop non-aggression pact was NOT signed with the sole intention of carving up Poland but it is historical fact that was the result of this pact. It was always Hitler's intention to destroy the Soviet Union and the Molotov-Rippentrop pact was nothing more than delaying tactics by Hitler as he turned his attention to the invasion of western Europe in May/June 1940.
It wasn't an alliance it was a non-aggression pact.
Please spare me the accusations that I'm some sort of apologist for Stalinism, I'm merely stating historical facts.

Wiki sez.

In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland into German and Soviet "spheres of influence", anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries

Stalin didn't know the future. The nazis might have been buying time to prepare for an Eastern invasion (Stalin should have read Trotsky who kept warning about that) but Stalin and a lot of his generals didn't think that was going to happen. From the point of view of Europe after the German invasion of the West, and prior to Barbarossa, the continent was largely divided by two totalitarian groups who had formed an alliance to so divide it. That the Nazis were later not honest in their alliance is neither here nor there regarding what was actually in the secret protocol at the time, the protocol was as real as it was secret.

Egginacup · 17-05-2015 06:28PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Because that wasn't the terms of the alliance. Doesn't make it less of an alliance though. If two countries join up to divide a third that's an alliance. No matter how you want to spin it.

I don't care how you want to explain your way out of it, whether painting me as a hair-splitter or redefining the term "alliance". It's weaker than Clinton glibly asking "It depends on what your definition of "is" is"

Contrary to the claims on here that the Soviet Union were allied to the Nazis, a claim that someone tried to sneak in as if the Soviets were now a military partner in the Nazi machine, the backtracking has begun and the lame and weak redefinitions of alliance have begun.

Montgomery and Rommel also had an agreement in the North Africa campaign regarding supply lines, prisoners of war, etc. Was that an alliance between Britain and Germany?

Firefox11 · 17-05-2015 07:26PM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

How come these people never had to answer for the widescale acts of depravity carried out by their soldiers as the war drew to a close in Berlin?

There is what i think is a very good documentary about happened in Germany in the immediate aftermath of the war...it's a bit old now but well worth a look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0FM_7_drf0

Egginacup · 17-05-2015 07:27PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Nasty internet gossip and rumours from those hiding behind anonymous names and they don't "have the balls" to say it to poor Russia's face. You tell 'em, Egginacup.

Nice one Conor. Thanks for that paragon of irrelevance.

Egginacup · 17-05-2015 07:34PM

Sand wrote: »

You poor dear. Mind you, the Poles had to suffer the consequences of the Soviet-Nazi alliance.

Just think though, 30 years ago if we were having this conversation you would be furiously denying the existence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, in line with Soviet propaganda. Now you are furiously denying that it constituted an alliance, in line with Russian propaganda.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

What horrors are the Russians "celebrating"? Can you answer or not? Grayson stated that the Russians, "in some fit of twisted nationalistic pride" or whatnot, are celebrating horrors. I have asked what horrors they are celebrating. I have yet to hear back. You have now piped in. Are you answering for him or just dribbling to deflect from a very simple question?

Egginacup · 17-05-2015 07:44PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I never said the pact was an alliance but the invasion certainly was.

The Soviets and the Third Reich were NOT allied.
It has been said on here that they were. They WEREN'T.

You are allowed to save some face by not saying any more about it.

blatantrereg · 17-05-2015 07:53PM

Egginacup wrote: »

What horrors are the Russians "celebrating"? Can you answer or not? Grayson stated that the Russians, "in some fit of twisted nationalistic pride" or whatnot, are celebrating horrors. I have asked what horrors they are celebrating. I have yet to hear back. You have now piped in. Are you answering for him or just dribbling to deflect from a very simple question?

I mentioned the gulags already, but here is a partial list

As a result of the Soviet takeover, Estonia permanently lost at least 200,000 people or 20% of its population to repression, exodus and war.
Tens of thousands of Estonian citizens underwent deportation during the Soviet occupation
In Estonia, they killed thousands of people including a large proportion of women and children, while burning down dozens of villages, schools and public buildings.
The Soviet annexation resulted in mass terror, the destruction of civil liberties, the economic system and Lithuanian culture. Between 1940–1941, thousands of Lithuanians were arrested and hundreds of political prisoners were arbitrarily executed. More than 17,000 people were deported to Siberia in June 1941.
Nearly 1.5 million inhabitants of the Soviet-controlled areas of former eastern Poland were deported, of whom 63.1% were Poles or other nationalities and 7.4% were Jews. Only a small number of these deportees survived the war and returned.[49] According to American professor Carroll Quigley, at least one third of the 320,000 Polish prisoners of war captured by the Red Army in 1939 were murdered
Soviet state security organs tortured their prisoners
Soviet soldiers often engaged in plunder, rape and other crimes against the Poles, causing the population to fear and hate the regime
In November 2006, photographs showing atrocities were declassified by the Finnish authorities. These include images of slain women and children
In the Baltic States, Belarus, Ukraine, and Bessarabia, the NKVD and attached units of the Red Army massacred prisoners and political opponents before fleeing from the advancing Axis forces
A study published by the German government in 1989, estimated the death toll of German civilians in eastern Europe at 635,000. With 270,000 dying as the result of Soviet war crimes,
Women were gang raped by as many as several dozen soldiers during the liberation of Poland. In some cases victims who did not hide in the basements all day were raped up to 15 times.[64][90] According to Antony Beevor, following the Red Army's capture of Berlin in 1945, Soviet troops raped German women and girls as young as eight years old.
Estimates of rape victims vary from 5,000 to 200,000.[99][100][101] According to Norman Naimark, Hungarian girls were kidnapped and taken to Red Army quarters, where they were imprisoned, repeatedly raped and sometimes murdered
According to Yugoslav politician Milovan Djilas, at least 121 cases of rape were documented, 111 of which also involved murder.

source for all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes#World_War_II

gandalf · 17-05-2015 08:06PM

Egginacup wrote: »

The Soviets and the Third Reich were NOT allied.
It has been said on here that they were. They WEREN'T.

You are allowed to save some face by not saying any more about it.

Oh please Eggy if anyone needs to save face it would have been you but at this stage you are so compromised by your blind obidence to Mother Russia you are beyond redemption.

The USSR (Russia) and the Nazi's agreed to carve up Poland in 1939 and then they proceed to carry out that act.

What do you think the Russians "liberated" Poland in 1939 ROFLOL!!

Iwasfrozen · 17-05-2015 08:13PM

Egginacup wrote: »

The Soviets and the Third Reich were NOT allied.
It has been said on here that they were. They WEREN'T.

You are allowed to save some face by not saying any more about it.

When two countries agree to carve up a third country between themselves, that's an alliance.

Eugene Norman · 17-05-2015 09:17PM

Egginacup wrote: »

The Soviets and the Third Reich were NOT allied.
It has been said on here that they were. They WEREN'T.

You are allowed to save some face by not saying any more about it.

Funny how the actual real arguments, links and facts about the very real military alliance that existed between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia are passing you by. There's just a general anger about how we all should give up now because you've won the argument in your head.

BlaasForRafa · 17-05-2015 09:22PM

Egginacup wrote: »

. Are you answering for him or just dribbling to deflect from a very simple question?

You've deflected from answering my question twice so please answer it now, it shouldn't be too difficult for you.

Tell us something Eggy, did the USSR invade Poland and Finland in 1939 and Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in 1940?

ebbsy · 17-05-2015 09:26PM

Ah yes those Russians. A bit over eager on the racist and invasion front, but a good bunch of lads otherwise.

robindch · 18-05-2015 04:09PM

For anybody interested in an accurate view of Russia today, there's a talk next Saturday evening in Smock Alley Theater at 8pm by Anne Applebaum and Peter Pomerantsev as part of the ongoing literary festival:

http://smockalley.ticketsolve.com/shows/873531778/events?show_id=873531778

Smock Alley wrote:

With relations between Russia and the West at their worst since the end of the Cold War, ILF Dublin brings together two leading writers to examine the geopolitical fault lines exposed by the crisis in Ukraine.

Historian and Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum is one of the world’s leading intellectuals and an acknowledged expert on the Soviet era. Her bestselling study Gulag: A History of the Soviet Camps won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction in 2004 and her latest book, Iron Curtain, has been hailed as a masterpiece by reviewers.

Peter Pomerantsev spent many years working as a TV producer in Moscow and his book, Nothing is True and Everything is Possible, delivers a devastating (and strangely entertaining) critique of the Putin era.

Elmer Blooker · 19-05-2015 10:07AM

robindch wrote: »

For anybody interested in an accurate view of Russia today, there's a talk next Saturday evening in Smock Alley Theater at 8pm by Anne Applebaum and Peter Pomerantsev as part of the ongoing literary festival:

http://smockalley.ticketsolve.com/shows/873531778/events?show_id=873531778

A propagandist for the Kiev regime using a "literature" festival as cover to give an "accurate" view of Russia today. God help us!!
Actually I wouldn't mind going if questions were allowed but I'd say I'd last about 30 seconds before being removed!

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/author/peter-pomerantsev/

Morpheus · 19-05-2015 10:09AM

in response to the OP's opening post.
because current russian leadership sees invasion of and annexation of another countries sovereign territory as proper foreign policy.
much like hitler did.

Grayson · 19-05-2015 10:37AM

Egginacup wrote: »

What horrors are the Russians "celebrating"? Can you answer or not? Grayson stated that the Russians, "in some fit of twisted nationalistic pride" or whatnot, are celebrating horrors. I have asked what horrors they are celebrating. I have yet to hear back. You have now piped in. Are you answering for him or just dribbling to deflect from a very simple question?

Have you seen what happened to germans after the war? Did you notice what happened to the entirety of eastern europe.

Now do you notice all the soviet flags and posters of stalin?

Stalin was every bit as bad as Hitler. He killed tens of millions of people throughout his reign. He conquered and installed puppet governments in every eastern European country. And now he's celebrated.

Can you imagine the germans celebrating Hitler? The germans don't whitewash over what they did.The Russians are doing that.

(And don't forget that they invaded Ukraine. Especially that bit called Crimea. The one they had swore would remain neutral and untouched.

Remember that happening? It was a bank holiday weekend. All these Russian troops went on holiday there. )

WakeUp · 19-05-2015 01:20PM

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

A propagandist for the Kiev regime using a "literature" festival as cover to give an "accurate" view of Russia today. God help us!!
Actually I wouldn't mind going if questions were allowed but I'd say I'd last about 30 seconds before being removed!
http://www.kyivpost.com/content/author/peter-pomerantsev/

I think it would be an interesting event all the same though I do have to agree with premise of your post. Pomerantsev born in Kiev, Applebaum married to a former Polish foreign minister Poland being the most vocal "new" Europe critic of Russia. Its hardly going to be an exercise in objectivity. I wonder will they touch on the simplicity and lack of brain cells within the Ukrainian leadership and politicians. and why any of us should give much of a phuck about Ukraine and risk a possible war with Russia vis a vis western "support", because of them. wonder will they touch on that.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko announced this in an interview with Ukraine's STB TV Channel.

"The war will be over if only Ukraine gets Donbas and Crimea back. How much time will it take? As much as is needed… There should be no compromise in that issue," he said.

http://www.unian.info/politics/1073809-poroshenko-war-will-be-over-when-donbas-and-crimea-returned-to-ukraine.html

roll on July. hopefully these pea brained morons will be cut loose let the cards fall where they may because war is not the answer and Crimea nor Donbas are not going back unless physically taken back.

robindch · 19-05-2015 01:48PM

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

A propagandist for the Kiev regime using a "literature" festival as cover to give an "accurate" view of Russia today. God help us!! Actually I wouldn't mind going if questions were allowed but I'd say I'd last about 30 seconds before being removed!

It's much more likely that you would provide immediate confirmation of Applebaum's and Pomerantsev's view that the Kremlin's viewpoint is crazy and people who support it are bonkers.

robindch · 19-05-2015 01:51PM

Fun report on Donetsk - a city now run by clashing, marauding, lawless militias:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/05/17/donetsk-ukraine-separatists-marauding-militias/27190647/

Elmer Blooker · 21-05-2015 01:26PM

robindch wrote: »

the Kremlin's viewpoint is crazy and people who support it are bonkers.

Are people who express the Kremlin viewpoint banned/censored from the airways etc because they are bonkers?
Please let me know where I can find these people who are bonkers and express the Kremlin viewpoint, I'm not talking about RT, Globalresearch, Sputnik and the like, I'm talking about our free and impartial western media. Examples?
Thanks.

weisses · 22-05-2015 09:08AM

Another valid reason

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/22/russia-will-block-google-twitter-and-facebook-if-they-withhold-blogger-data

To comply with the law the three firms must hand over data on Russian bloggers with more than 3,000 readers per day and take down websites that Roskomnadzor saw as containing calls for “unsanctioned protests and unrest”, Ampelonsky said

Autonomous Cowherd · 22-05-2015 10:03AM

I find this person quite interesting - Andrey Fursov

During the last 30 years, we have been witnessing the fading away of nation-states, the squeezing of civil society, depoliticization of the political sphere, and deliberate primitivization and weakening of mass education, including higher education. In America, this process took place in the 1970s and ’80s; in Russia, we are witnessing it now. But thanks to the socialist foundations, those who are trying to demolish our education are succeeding, but only partly. This liquidation is the essence of the so-called neo-liberal revolution, or rather, counter-revolution: counter not only to the main tendencies of the postwar 30 years, but also to the whole period of European history since the Renaissance.

It is not just a regression; it is counter-progress. It is deliberate counter-progress.

Full Text - http://newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com/media/andrey-fursov-the-current-world-crisis-its-social-nature-and-challenge-to-social-science/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_KCeerpAFs

As for why dignitaries decide not to mark an event in Russia it is pure kindergarten politics. I would not like to live in Russia because of the power of the Oligarchy and the terrible corruption. I would not like to live in America because of the power of the plutocracy and the terrible corruption. To suggest that one is ''better'' or more ''noble'' than the other is to admit to having been propagandized.

robindch · 22-05-2015 12:09PM

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

I'm talking about our free and impartial western media.

Ooops. A couple of guys who say they're serving Russian soldiers were injured while on what they claim was a "resonccaissance mission" and were transferred to Kyiv for treatment:

From the OSCE report:

OSCE wrote:

The SMM visited the two individuals currently held at the military hospital in Kyiv, who received medical treatment. The SMM spoke to the two individuals without the presence of Ukrainian authorities. The SMM assessed their general condition and gathered their accounts about their capture.

One of them said he had received military education in the Russian Federation. Both individuals claimed that they were members of a unit of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. They claimed that they were on a reconnaissance mission. They were armed but had no orders to attack. Both of them said that they came under fire, got injured and were captured on 16 May 2015 at the contact line near Shchastya. One of them said he had received orders from his military unit to go to Ukraine; he was to “rotate” after three months. Both of them said they had been to Ukraine “on missions” before. One of them stressed repeatedly that there were no Russian troops involved in fighting in Ukraine. Both said they were provided with a Ukrainian lawyer who visited them today.

circadian · 22-05-2015 01:32PM

I'm waiting for the " that's not an impartial news source" line.

Why has the West boycotted the parade by those who saved the world from Nazism.

Comments