Striving to make sense of the Ukraine war

[horsefly 4,302]

Just now, PurpleCanary said:

I said I hadn't read all the posts, so I wasn't sure and wasn't estimating a percentage. As it happens I don't remember any that used it as  'a significant justification' for the invasion, as opposed to a non-justified reason, but there may be some such. I just hadn't noticed any. I understood your point about buffer states.

I think you will find that Nevermind persistently offered the "de-Naz*ification" narrative as a justification for the invasion. My point too was referring to the wider community of people using the history as a justification for the invasion, not just the posters here. But, it seems clear neither of us believe that there is any legitimate leap from the history of Russian concerns about invasions to any kind of justification for its invasion of the Ukraine.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

I think you will find that Nevermind persistently offered the "de-Naz*ification" narrative as a justification for the invasion. My point too was referring to the wider community of people using the history as a justification for the invasion, not just the posters here. But, it seems clear neither of us believe that there is any legitimate leap from the history of Russian concerns about invasions to any kind of justification for its invasion of the Ukraine.

They may have done. Nevermind's heart is sometimes in the right place and sometimes not but his prose is often too opaque, to use a kind word, to read through. And, no, I don't believe Putin's invasion is justified.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

As to buffer states, yes, there is an argument that they are no longer necessary, but that doesn't mean that Putin believes that or alternatively that even though he knows Russia doesn't now need them he has to act as if it does, because otherwise he would look like a weak tsar. And a modern-day tsar is in effect what he has to appear as.

Just to expand on this, countries have their myths and their stories. There is an idea of what a country is. De Gaulle during and after world war two worked hard to put forward an idea of France that wasn't entirely in line with reality.

And there is an idea perhaps not of the UK but of Britain and even more particularly England, of the island nation standing alone and unconquered in a thousand years. Which undoubtedly played a part in Brexit.

And part of the idea of Russia, part of its mythology, is that it is at the mercy of outsiders who want to destroy its culture and ravage its land. You can argue that this idea is outdated, because in reality that danger isn't there any more, but it is in the nature of these ideas that they are anachronistic, because they are based on historical myths and stories.

So they exist and keep their power for some time beyond the point at which they are relevant, as with the Britain/England idea. Only the slow recognition of the new reality will kill them off.

Edited May 19, 2022 by PurpleCanary

[Bort 34]

16 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

No, I said the geography was the only way the N-aziism was manifested in that first verse as anyone with any knowledge of German history would know that the Nazis totally misunderstood the key thrust of the remaining lyrics in that same verse, not to mention there's no getting away from the fact that the whole anthem was the anthem for the Weimar Republic before it.

Ask yourself this question: if those two lines in that first verse were rewritten, so we had a hypothetical "Von der Neisse bis zum Saarland; von den Alpen bis zum Sylt" (From the Neisse to the Saarland, from the Alps to Sylt - the Neisse is Germany's eastern border along with the Oder, the Saarland is Germany's most western state, and Sylt is a German island in the North Sea close to the border with Denmark), where would there be a hint of N-aziism in that lyric?

At the risk of going in circles, it doesn't matter that the N*zis "misunderstood" (perhaps a bit generous... "repurposed", maybe?) lines from the anthem like "Germany above all" - that line is now associated with N*zism. It is tainted with N*zi ideology. That is the problem.

You've even given the perfect example - if simply rewriting the lyrics in that stanza to correct the geographical references would remove the N*zi connection, why didn't Germany do that after WWII rather than drop the verse entirely? Do you think that would have been appropriate?

[horsefly 4,302]

18 minutes ago, Bort said:

At the risk of going in circles, it doesn't matter that the N*zis "misunderstood" (perhaps a bit generous... "repurposed", maybe?) lines from the anthem like "Germany above all" - that line is now associated with N*zism. It is tainted with N*zi ideology. That is the problem.

You've even given the perfect example - if simply rewriting the lyrics in that stanza to correct the geographical references would remove the N*zi connection, why didn't Germany do that after WWII rather than drop the verse entirely? Do you think that would have been appropriate?

No risk at all; just certainty.

[Bort 34]

8 hours ago, horsefly said:

Further, talk of "buffer states" is an egregious anachronism belonging to the era of empires. In the current world order it is entirely unacceptable to conceive of independent sovereign nations as "buffer states" whose purpose is to protect the interests of more powerful nations. It is the duty of all nation states to respect the sovereignty of all other nation states, and secure safe borders through diplomacy. That requires the notion of a "buffer state" to be confined to history and regarded as an irrelevant (and immoral) concept in a post-colonial political world order.

 

Read through this list and tell me we live in a post-colonial world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases

Analyse the way wealthy countries (and their corporations) still exploit the Global South's resources and labour through both military and economic coercion. Imperialism is very much alive.

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

4 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Just to expand on this, countries have their myths and their stories. There is an idea of what a country is. De Gaulle during and after world war two worked hard to put forward an idea of France that wasn't entirely in line with reality.

And there is an idea perhaps not of the UK but of Britain and even more particularly England, of the island nation standing alone and unconquered in a thousand years. Which undoubtedly played a part in Brexit.

And part of the idea of Russia, part of its mythology, is that it is at the mercy of outsiders who want to destroy its culture and ravage its land. You can argue that this idea is outdated, because in reality that danger isn't there any more, but it is in the nature of these ideas that they are anachronistic, because they are based on historical myths and stories.

So they exist and keep their power for some time beyond the point at which they are relevant, as with the Britain/England idea. Only the slow recognition of the new reality will kill them off.

I always think of the UK 'coup' (no other word for it) or Dutch invasion of 1688 when I see this. Yes Dutch troops invaded and literally conquered.

Conveniently or air-brushed but now called the 'Glorious Revolution' overthrowing the legitimate James II. The winners always write the history.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

35 minutes ago, Bort said:

At the risk of going in circles, it doesn't matter that the N*zis "misunderstood" (perhaps a bit generous... "repurposed", maybe?) lines from the anthem like "Germany above all" - that line is now associated with N*zism. It is tainted with N*zi ideology. That is the problem.

You've even given the perfect example - if simply rewriting the lyrics in that stanza to correct the geographical references would remove the N*zi connection, why didn't Germany do that after WWII rather than drop the verse entirely? Do you think that would have been appropriate?

Maybe they never thought of it, or more likely maybe borders were not clear? Don't forget the borders would have been somewhat different considering Germany was on the brink of being split, and indeed the Berlin Wall was built in 1952 (which I think was the same year Adenauer's government made their decision re. the anthem). I do know there were thoughts on producing another national anthem, but in the end Adenauer and chums just chose the third verse of what they have.

There is no sensible reason for the rest of verse one to be tainted with N-a-z-i ideology when you are fully aware of its origins from von Fallersleben and indeed as its history as also the anthem of the Weimar Republic, which are pretty much the polar opposite of N-a-z-iism. We do agree that it was "repurposed", after all.

[horsefly 4,302]

5 minutes ago, Bort said:

Read through this list and tell me we live in a post-colonial world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases

Analyse the way wealthy countries (and their corporations) still exploit the Global South's resources and labour through both military and economic coercion. Imperialism is very much alive.

If you're claiming that the current geopolitical order represents anything like the era of empires then you are living in a fantasy. The age of empires saw countries invaded, occupied, and subjugated against the will of their people. Or are you suggesting that the American military bases in the UK, Germany, Poland, etc. are the result of US invasions? I have no doubt that various pressures/incentives are sometimes applied to persuade a country to accommodate foreign bases, but to suggest that this is the equivalent of the days of enforced colonialism is simply false.

[Bort 34]

4 hours ago, horsefly said:

If you're claiming that the current geopolitical order represents anything like the era of empires then you are living in a fantasy. The age of empires saw countries invaded, occupied, and subjugated against the will of their people. Or are you suggesting that the American military bases in the UK, Germany, Poland, etc. are the result of US invasions? I have no doubt that various pressures/incentives are sometimes applied to persuade a country to accommodate foreign bases, but to suggest that this is the equivalent of the days of enforced colonialism is simply false.

The United States, particularly post-Cold War, oversees the most powerful empire in human history. Its ability to extend influence globally is unparalleled, and it achieves this through a combination of:

- martial threat (the foreign bases as outlined above, its leadership of NATO, and a military budget which is larger than the next ten countries combined)

- economic manipulation (directing the development of the world through the IMF, NED and World Bank, ensuring that other countries build a deregulated, privatised economy which enables straightforward extraction of wealth for American corporations, and keeping these countries poor through exploitative loan structuring. Examples: Central America, most of Sub-Saharan Africa)

- political intervention (prompting regime change in unfriendly nations through: punitive sanctions, inciting revolution, electoral manipulation, invasion, or any combination of the above. Some "successful" - South Korea after WWII, Iran 1953, Indonesia and Japan in the 1960s, Libya as discussed, and most of Latin America, including blessing Chile with Pinochet. Some less successful - North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and the majority of the Middle East.) 

- cultural and informational dominance (American literature, film, music, language, news, and the export of pro-US narratives on world events. All of this reinforces the US as the global "protagonist".) 

Name another country which was ever capable of all of that, and on a comparable scale? 

Whether you think this is a positive thing or not depends on whether you believe US hegemony is ultimately a force for good. Personally, I don't, given that it's a country of rampant inequality, violence and racism built on a history of genocide and slavery. It ranks shamefully low on a number of metrics for quality of life for its population including poverty rate, life expectancy, literacy rate, and infant mortality. It actively suppresses improvement of metrics like these in the Global South for its own interests (i.e. cheap labour). It has the highest incarceration rate in the world - how's that for authoritarian?

Something needs to change, in my opinion.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Bort

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

53 minutes ago, Bort said:

The United States, particularly post-Cold War, oversees the most powerful empire in human history. Its ability to extend influence globally is unparalleled, and it achieves this through a combination of:

- martial threat (the foreign bases as outlined above, its leadership of NATO, and a military budget which is larger than the next ten countries combined)

- economic manipulation (directing the development of the world through the IMF, NED and World Bank, ensuring that other countries build a deregulated, privatised economy which enables straightforward extraction of wealth for American corporations, and keeping these countries poor through exploitative loan structuring. Examples: Central America, most of Sub-Saharan Africa)

- political intervention (prompting regime change in unfriendly nations through: punitive sanctions, inciting revolution, electoral manipulation, invasion, or any combination of the above. Some "successful" - South Korea after WWII, Iran 1953, Indonesia and Japan in the 1960s, Libya as discussed, and most of Latin America, including blessing Chile with Pinochet. Some less successful - North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and the majority of the Middle East.) 

- cultural and informational dominance (American literature, film, music, language, news, and the export of pro-US narratives on world events. All of this reinforces the US as the global "protagonist".) 

Name another country which was ever capable of all of that, and on a comparable scale? 

Whether you think this is a positive thing or not depends on whether you believe US hegemony is ultimately a force for good. Personally, I don't, given that it's a country of rampant inequality, violence and racism built on a history of genocide and slavery. It ranks shamefully low on a number of metrics for quality of life for its population including poverty rate, life expectancy, literacy rate, and infant mortality. It actively suppresses improvement of metrics like these in the Global South for its own interests (i.e. cheap labour). It has the highest incarceration rate in the world - how's that for authoritarian?

Something needs to change, in my opinion.

That's actually a not unfair summation of the Pax Americana, but the critical point about it is that the vast bulk of the world's liberal democracies buy into it voluntarily and not through the threat of force.

Nobody's forcing Sweden and Finland to abandon decades of neutrality to join NATO; they want in because they're looking at what Russia is doing to Ukraine and they want to make sure they're not next.

 

Edited May 19, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Bort 34]

24 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That's actually a not unfair summation of the Pax Americana, but the critical point about it is that the vast bulk of the world's liberal democracies buy into it voluntarily and not through the threat of force.

Nobody's forcing Sweden and Finland to abandon decades of neutrality to join NATO; they want in because they're looking at what Russia is doing to Ukraine and they want to make sure they're not next.

 

Western liberal democracies (the friends of the biggest bully on the playground) buy into it because US-enforced global capitalism suits their material interests. Maintenance of their wealth and relative prosperity is reliant on the security of advantageous international supply chains, to the detriment of the countries containing the raw resources, doing the manufacturing, etc. Corporate profits increase, which are then funnelled into the pockets of the policymakers through lobbying. Shareholders rejoice. Line goes up.

Russia is framed as a particular threat because it's resource-rich but sits partially outside this system - I can guarantee that if Putin allowed American companies greater access to Russian markets and assets, the narrative would suddenly be very different, even if nothing else changed. Look at Saudi Arabia - the US (and UK) are perfectly happy to provide that dictatorship with weapons to commit war crimes, because it's profitable.

China is another example - their Belt and Road Initiative has emerged as a rival to IMF-style investment in developing countries, without the same conditions for privatisation. This is one the of reasons we're seeing China increasingly portrayed as the New Enemy to Western Values.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

9 minutes ago, Bort said:

Western liberal democracies (the friends of the biggest bully on the playground) buy into it because US-enforced global capitalism suits their material interests. Maintenance of their wealth and relative prosperity is reliant on the security of advantageous international supply chains, to the detriment of the countries containing the raw resources, doing the manufacturing, etc. Corporate profits increase, which are then funnelled into the pockets of the policymakers through lobbying. Shareholders rejoice. Line goes up.

Russia is framed as a particular threat because it's resource-rich but sits partially outside this system - I can guarantee that if Putin allowed American companies greater access to Russian markets and assets, the narrative would suddenly be very different, even if nothing else changed. Look at Saudi Arabia - the US (and UK) are perfectly happy to provide that dictatorship with weapons to commit war crimes, because it's profitable.

China is another example - their Belt and Road Initiative has emerged as a rival to IMF-style investment in developing countries, without the same conditions for privatisation. This is one the of reasons we're seeing China increasingly portrayed as the New Enemy to Western Values.

Western companies moving into Russia has been a large part of the growth of Russia's economy since the end of the cold war; now they're pulling out and Russia is suffering, and deservedly so. 

The US' friends are its friends because they've chosen to be. It's not because anyone believes that they're altruistic saints, but because they're the lesser of the evils as far as superpowers go, as Xi Jinping and Putin prove on a daily basis. The only nations that want to be in Russia and China's sphere of influence are those run by despots who see it as the best way of avoiding accountability. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Bort 34]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Western companies moving into Russia has been a large part of the growth of Russia's economy since the end of the cold war; now they're pulling out and Russia is suffering, and deservedly so. 

The US' friends are its friends because they've chosen to be. It's not because anyone believes that they're altruistic saints, but because they're the lesser of the evils as far as superpowers go, as Xi Jinping and Putin prove on a daily basis. 

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Putin partially reversed the liberalisation of the Russian economy introduced by Yeltsin. The US doesn't like that.

Russia may be suffering, but certain Western economies don't look too hot at the moment either. Not sure we're in a position to gloat (plus it's never nice to see ordinary civilians affected by sanctions, even in retaliation).

If you genuinely believe China is a more sinister force than the US despite all the facts I've already offered, I'm not sure what more to say. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,553]

12 minutes ago, Bort said:

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Putin partially reversed the liberalisation of the Russian economy introduced by Yeltsin. The US doesn't like that.

Russia may be suffering, but certain Western economies don't look too hot at the moment either. Not sure we're in a position to gloat (plus it's never nice to see ordinary civilians affected by sanctions, even in retaliation).

If you genuinely believe China is a more sinister force than the US despite all the facts I've already offered, I'm not sure what more to say. 

China thought it's population was getting too big and introduced the one-child policy. If anyone was found to have a second child then the child would be killed. To this day, there are myriads of people in China who exist outside the system because their parents had to hide them from the state for them to survive. The population is massivlely imbalanced towards males over females because male children were more valued, so if anyone was going to be saved it was going to be the boys.

It's a grimly humorous irony that that very policy is leading to a point where China's rapid growth is going to finish up with an equally dramatic crash. It's also one fantastic example what a truly vile thing the Communist Party of China is. 

I know all the Marxists out there see some glimmer of hope in Russia and China, but the fact is that Russia is run by a gangster, and China is a state run like a corporation with the same level of social conscience in its decision-making. socialism plays no part in either of them, however much you desperately want to see some sort of socialist saviour in them.

Real socialism only exists in the context of social democracy, where the checks and balances exist to give people at the bottom of the pecking order any rights and say at all, which are a part of the system itself rather than the views of the leaders at any given point in time. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,302]

6 hours ago, Bort said:

If you genuinely believe China is a more sinister force than the US despite all the facts I've already offered, I'm not sure what more to say. 

Indeed! And that says everything we need to know about your judgement.

[horsefly 4,302]

8 hours ago, Bort said:

The United States, particularly post-Cold War, oversees the most powerful empire in human history. Its ability to extend influence globally is unparalleled, and it achieves this through a combination of:

- martial threat (the foreign bases as outlined above, its leadership of NATO, and a military budget which is larger than the next ten countries combined)

- economic manipulation (directing the development of the world through the IMF, NED and World Bank, ensuring that other countries build a deregulated, privatised economy which enables straightforward extraction of wealth for American corporations, and keeping these countries poor through exploitative loan structuring. Examples: Central America, most of Sub-Saharan Africa)

- political intervention (prompting regime change in unfriendly nations through: punitive sanctions, inciting revolution, electoral manipulation, invasion, or any combination of the above. Some "successful" - South Korea after WWII, Iran 1953, Indonesia and Japan in the 1960s, Libya as discussed, and most of Latin America, including blessing Chile with Pinochet. Some less successful - North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and the majority of the Middle East.) 

- cultural and informational dominance (American literature, film, music, language, news, and the export of pro-US narratives on world events. All of this reinforces the US as the global "protagonist".) 

Name another country which was ever capable of all of that, and on a comparable scale? 

Whether you think this is a positive thing or not depends on whether you believe US hegemony is ultimately a force for good. Personally, I don't, given that it's a country of rampant inequality, violence and racism built on a history of genocide and slavery. It ranks shamefully low on a number of metrics for quality of life for its population including poverty rate, life expectancy, literacy rate, and infant mortality. It actively suppresses improvement of metrics like these in the Global South for its own interests (i.e. cheap labour). It has the highest incarceration rate in the world - how's that for authoritarian?

Something needs to change, in my opinion.

Alas, typically superficial. That the USA exerts considerable influence through power and wealth is undeniable; to describe it as an "empire" is tripe. That some of the USA's interventions on the world stage have been malign is undeniable, that some of their interventions have been for the good is also undeniable. Anyone remotely committed to democracy, freedom of speech, and the rights of the individual, can not be unaware that those fundamental values have persisted and triumphed throughout the 20th century (and into the 21st) only as a result of the exercise of American power. The defeat of Na*zism and Stalinism depended upon American might. Do I wish that the triumph of democracy could have been achieved without the need for that power? Absolutely! It has come packaged with some egregious crimes that you have indeed mentioned.

That you believe America, as flawed as it is by various social issues (as is every democracy), is on a moral par with the despotic regime in China demonstrates more clearly than anything that you don't possess the knowledge or subtlety of thought necessary to analyse the messy complexity of the geopolitics within which we live. You don't have to be an uncritical MAGA hat wearing loon to be grateful that America and not communist Russia triumphed in the cold-war. There is much that appals me about modern day America, but there is a hell of a lot more that appals me about modern day Russia and China.  

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

If you genuinely believe China is a more sinister force than the US despite all the facts I've already offered, I'm not sure what more to say. 

Even if they aren't, they will be if they ever have more influence than the US. Global power is never more evident than this century. And we were worried during the 60s Cold War. What a joke.

[Bort 34]

3 hours ago, horsefly said:

The defeat of Na*zism and Stalinism depended upon American might.

This is ahistorical I'm afraid; modern academic consensus isn't as clear-cut. The momentum on the Eastern front had already shifted by the time American lend-lease to the USSR really got going by mid-1942. Even then, the materiel that was supplied through lend-lease represented between 4 and 10% of USSR domestic production - definitely useful in expediting the end of the war and likely saving many lives, but difficult to call it crucial. Stalin was very complimentary of lend-lease during the war, but saying anything to the contrary would have been foolish as he'd have risked throwing away an advantage.

N*zi Germany were already well on the path to losing the war by the time of American boots on the ground in continental Europe - firstly the Allied invasion of Italy, and even more so before D-Day.

It was the Soviet Union who was most insistent on exposing N*zi crimes through the Nuremberg Trials. The USA, on the other hand, integrated N*zis into their post-war military as part of Operation Paperclip. To me, it's patently clear which country did more to condemn N*zism.

[horsefly 4,302]

31 minutes ago, Bort said:

This is ahistorical I'm afraid; modern academic consensus isn't as clear-cut. The momentum on the Eastern front had already shifted by the time American lend-lease to the USSR really got going by mid-1942. Even then, the materiel that was supplied through lend-lease represented between 4 and 10% of USSR domestic production - definitely useful in expediting the end of the war and likely saving many lives, but difficult to call it crucial. Stalin was very complimentary of lend-lease during the war, but saying anything to the contrary would have been foolish as he'd have risked throwing away an advantage.

N*zi Germany were already well on the path to losing the war by the time of American boots on the ground in continental Europe - firstly the Allied invasion of Italy, and even more so before D-Day.

It was the Soviet Union who was most insistent on exposing N*zi crimes through the Nuremberg Trials. The USA, on the other hand, integrated N*zis into their post-war military as part of Operation Paperclip. To me, it's patently clear which country did more to condemn N*zism.

Utter tosh! You're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think for one moment that the Normandy invasion could have been possible without the involvement of masses of USA troops and resources. 

Interesting that you fail to mention that the country you claim did most to condemn Na*zism happened to be the country that formed a pact with Na*zi Germany, in order to invade and usurp the sovereign territory of Poland. Stalin would have been content to live with Na*zi Germany had Hitler not made the fatal error to invade Russia too. Russia was also the country that had no qualms in profiting from the Na*zi invasion of other countries by invading or subjugating them themselves once the Na*zis were defeated. 

As for war crimes; I think you will find that Stalin ordered plenty of those, such as the dreadful Katyn massacre.

As for "operation paper clip"; are you really so ignorant of the history that you are unaware that Stalin also integrated Na*zi scientists into the Soviet post-war military regime. It was simply a straightforward race between the USA and Russia to see who could get hold of these scientists first to prepare them for the inevitable cold-war to come..

Edited May 20, 2022 by horsefly

[Yellow Fever 3,793]

I always seems to me that there are some people who will take every opportunity, valid or otherwise, to 'sympathize' with the Russians or equally be anti West/American. It goes beyond facts (and neither is whiter than white) and presents itself simply as a willingness to believe without question every pro-Russian anti-West narrative they can find ... self justified by quasi intellectual clap-trap. Criticism of some of our actions is certainly valid but that doesn't make the Russian actions anymore correct in Syria, Georgia or indeed today in Ukraine. 

I have a lot of respect and indeed sympathy for the Russian struggles against Hitler. They did indeed in a material way 'win' that war. However that can in no way excuse Stalin's crimes or indeed today Putin's imperialist ambitions.

This thread is entitled "Striving to make sense of the Ukraine war". Surely the only thing you need to know is that Putin fooled himself into believing he would 'liberate' Ukraine in 2 or 3 days with the willing help of it's population. He was simply, foolishly, murderously incorrect. All the rest is just his excuses already proved hopelessly false.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 hours ago, Bort said:

This is ahistorical I'm afraid; modern academic consensus isn't as clear-cut. The momentum on the Eastern front had already shifted by the time American lend-lease to the USSR really got going by mid-1942. Even then, the materiel that was supplied through lend-lease represented between 4 and 10% of USSR domestic production - definitely useful in expediting the end of the war and likely saving many lives, but difficult to call it crucial. Stalin was very complimentary of lend-lease during the war, but saying anything to the contrary would have been foolish as he'd have risked throwing away an advantage.

N*zi Germany were already well on the path to losing the war by the time of American boots on the ground in continental Europe - firstly the Allied invasion of Italy, and even more so before D-Day.

It was the Soviet Union who was most insistent on exposing N*zi crimes through the Nuremberg Trials. The USA, on the other hand, integrated N*zis into their post-war military as part of Operation Paperclip. To me, it's patently clear which country did more to condemn N*zism.

So why did the Soviet Union adopt N$zi ideals?

One party state. Imprison or murder dissidents. Persecute Jews. Spend a big proportion of GDP to militarise and weaponise. Swallow other nations. Promote elitism among those chosen. Censor literature and Art.

[Creative Midfielder 1,998]

6 hours ago, Bort said:

It was the Soviet Union who was most insistent on exposing N*zi crimes through the Nuremberg Trials. The USA, on the other hand, integrated N*zis into their post-war military as part of Operation Paperclip. To me, it's patently clear which country did more to condemn N*zism.

Absolutely risible - in 1939 when the whole of Europe was well aware of what the Nazis stood for and the democracies were preparing to confront them, the Russians signed a 10 year non-aggression pact with Hitler which wasn't really that surprising since Nazism and Stalinism had so many similarities. As KG has already pointed out - opposite sides of the same coin really.

 

[Indy 3,301]

Still some brave Russians, we need more like him to turn the tide of pro war Russians. I have communicated briefly to a former project colleague through LinkedIn, at Lukoil, he’s so stressed as his family are torn on their views. Shame as he’s such a great engineer and lovely guy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-61515365

[Bort 34]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Utter tosh! You're living in cloud cuckoo land if you think for one moment that the Normandy invasion could have been possible without the involvement of masses of USA troops and resources. 

That's not what I said, so I'll be clearer - the N*zis would have lost the war even without the Allied invasion of Normandy. It would have taken longer, but it still would have happened. The Soviets were already near the German border by mid-1944.

Another common pro-US misconception is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to prompt Japanese surrender in the Pacific theatre. Japan was already seeking a peace settlement with the US, but they weren't willing to surrender unconditionally like America were demanding - the main point of contention was the protection of Hirohito as emperor. He had a Godlike status in Japanese society, and allowing his imprisonment or execution was unthinkable for them. The most significant prompt for the dropping of the bombs was the imminent Soviet invasion of Japanese-occupied Manchuria, which was going to put additional pressure on the Japanese government and potentially lead to Japan surrendering to the USSR rather than the US. The Americans didn't want the Soviets at the negotiation table after the war, so the bombings went ahead while the USSR invaded Manchuria. It's at this point Hirohito stepped in and offered to surrender to the US - he remained in power until 1989 thanks to protection from the US, and never faced trial for his actions because he was moulded into an ally. The end result was what Japan was seeking even before the bombings.

To summarise: the US used nuclear weapons on Japanese civilians to protect their geopolitical interests, not to save lives or bring about justice against Japan's leadership. It was a horrific crime against humanity that greatly contributed to the tensions of the Cold War.

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

Interesting that you fail to mention that the country you claim did most to condemn Na*zism happened to be the country that formed a pact with Na*zi Germany, in order to invade and usurp the sovereign territory of Poland. Stalin would have been content to live with Na*zi Germany had Hitler not made the fatal error to invade Russia too. Russia was also the country that had no qualms in profiting from the Na*zi invasion of other countries by invading or subjugating them themselves once the Na*zis were defeated. 

This is a superficial understanding of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - it was a last resort by the USSR after their failed attempts to form an anti-fascist alliance with the UK and France. It gave the USSR valuable time to develop its industrial base, so it would eventually be in a position to defeat Germany without being so reliant on other countries. The occupation of Russia was H*tler's (playing it safe with the censoring) ultimate prize - access to lebensraum and resources, and destruction of "Judeo-Bolshevism" and the Slavic untermenschen. Stalin knew this.

The Soviets only invaded Polish territory once the Polish government collapsed - any land not occupied by them would have been taken by the N*zis instead. The Allies recognised the difference in actions between Germany and the USSR - why do you think they declared war on the former and not the latter?

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

As for war crimes; I think you will find that Stalin ordered plenty of those, such as the dreadful Katyn massacre.

Katyn was dreadful, we can agree on that.

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

As for "operation paper clip"; are you really so ignorant of the history that you are unaware that Stalin also integrated Na*zi scientists into the Soviet post-war military regime. It was simply a straightforward race between the USA and Russia to see who could get hold of these scientists first to prepare them for the inevitable cold-war to come..

I'd be interested if you have any examples of N*zis who were granted senior leadership roles in the USSR like Heusinger, Walter Hallstein, Hans Speidel, Johann von Kielmansegg, Wolfgang Altenburg etc. were in the West? 

[horsefly 4,302]

2 minutes ago, Bort said:

That's not what I said, so I'll be clearer - the N*zis would have lost the war even without the Allied invasion of Normandy. It would have taken longer, but it still would have happened. The Soviets were already near the German border by mid-1944.

Another common pro-US misconception is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to prompt Japanese surrender in the Pacific theatre. Japan was already seeking a peace settlement with the US, but they weren't willing to surrender unconditionally like America were demanding - the main point of contention was the protection of Hirohito as emperor. He had a Godlike status in Japanese society, and allowing his imprisonment or execution was unthinkable for them. The most significant prompt for the dropping of the bombs was the imminent Soviet invasion of Japanese-occupied Manchuria, which was going to put additional pressure on the Japanese government and potentially lead to Japan surrendering to the USSR rather than the US. The Americans didn't want the Soviets at the negotiation table after the war, so the bombings went ahead while the USSR invaded Manchuria. It's at this point Hirohito stepped in and offered to surrender to the US - he remained in power until 1989 thanks to protection from the US, and never faced trial for his actions because he was moulded into an ally. The end result was what Japan was seeking even before the bombings.

To summarise: the US used nuclear weapons on Japanese civilians to protect their geopolitical interests, not to save lives or bring about justice against Japan's leadership. It was a horrific crime against humanity that greatly contributed to the tensions of the Cold War.

This is a superficial understanding of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - it was a last resort by the USSR after their failed attempts to form an anti-fascist alliance with the UK and France. It gave the USSR valuable time to develop its industrial base, so it would eventually be in a position to defeat Germany without being so reliant on other countries. The occupation of Russia was H*tler's (playing it safe with the censoring) ultimate prize - access to lebensraum and resources, and destruction of "Judeo-Bolshevism" and the Slavic untermenschen. Stalin knew this.

The Soviets only invaded Polish territory once the Polish government collapsed - any land not occupied by them would have been taken by the N*zis instead. The Allies recognised the difference in actions between Germany and the USSR - why do you think they declared war on the former and not the latter?

Katyn was dreadful, we can agree on that.

I'd be interested if you have any examples of N*zis who were granted senior leadership roles in the USSR like Heusinger, Walter Hallstein, Hans Speidel, Johann von Kielmansegg, Wolfgang Altenburg etc. were in the West? 

Alas, more distorted rubbish, barely worth responding to. Try writing something that bears some relation to reality rather than the usual patently obvious pro-Russian, anti-American propaganda. Strange how the noble Stalin only invaded Poland to stop the Germans occupying it, yet returned a few years later to bring it under full Soviet control. Ditto every other country that Stalin decided to trap behind the iron curtain.

[Bort 34]

20 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Real socialism only exists in the context of social democracy, where the checks and balances exist to give people at the bottom of the pecking order any rights and say at all, which are a part of the system itself rather than the views of the leaders at any given point in time. 

Liberal social democracy and democratic socialism are not the same thing. Social democracy is capitalism with just enough welfare to keep the working class from revolting, while still being reliant on both domestic and international exploitation. There's no evidence it will lead to socialism. Even the widely-praised Nordic model is still overseeing rising inequality in Scandinavia, because it doesn't address the root problem of runaway accumulation of capital and power for an increasingly small portion of the population.

If the ability to choose between two bourgeois corporate-backed parties every five years is genuinely the best we can do, it doesn't say much for Western "democracy".

[horsefly 4,302]

2 minutes ago, Bort said:

Liberal social democracy and democratic socialism are not the same thing. Social democracy is capitalism with just enough welfare to keep the working class from revolting, while still being reliant on both domestic and international exploitation. There's no evidence it will lead to socialism. Even the widely-praised Nordic model is still overseeing rising inequality in Scandinavia, because it doesn't address the root problem of runaway accumulation of capital and power for an increasingly small portion of the population.

If the ability to choose between two bourgeois corporate-backed parties every five years is genuinely the best we can do, it doesn't say much for Western "democracy".

Says the man who previously claimed, "If you genuinely believe China is a more sinister force than the US despite all the facts I've already offered, I'm not sure what more to say."

[Bort 34]

5 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

So why did the Soviet Union adopt N$zi ideals?

One party state. Imprison or murder dissidents. Persecute Jews. Spend a big proportion of GDP to militarise and weaponise. Swallow other nations. Promote elitism among those chosen. Censor literature and Art.

It may interest you to know that Stalin was a supporter of the creation of Israel, and also oversaw the establishment of the only other official Jewish jurisdiction in the world, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast in Eastern Russia. Not exactly gas chambers, eh?

Every other criticism you've raised could also be levelled at the United States, and to a greater degree. There's a long list of people who fell on the wrong side of the FBI and paid the price - Fred Hampton, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King for starters. Research COINTELPRO, McCarthyism, the Red Scare, the Lavender Scare. This covers censorship too.

Again, highest incarceration rate in the world.

Military expenditure I've covered. To reiterate, more than the next ten countries combined.

International influence through hard and soft power, also covered already.

Elitism is inherent to capitalism.

Finally, a quote from Julius Nyerere, former President of Tanzania: "The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them."

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

2 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Absolutely risible - in 1939 when the whole of Europe was well aware of what the Nazis stood for and the democracies were preparing to confront them, the Russians signed a 10 year non-aggression pact with Hitler which wasn't really that surprising since Nazism and Stalinism had so many similarities. As KG has already pointed out - opposite sides of the same coin really.

 

CM, I don’t often disagree with you, but I think experts generally agree that Stalin was under no illusions about Hitler and knew there would be a war, but also knew his armed forces (partly because of his own actions) were nowhere near ready, so he agreed to the pact to buy time. He never thought it would last ten years.

Further, I think the German High Command settled on 1941 for the invasion of the Soviet Union because it thought the Soviets were not ready but would be, or at least readier, a year later.

Bear in mind that even in 1940 in the Tory party in the UK there was still a strong appeasement faction or argument, not least because Soviet communism was seen as the greater long term threat. Impossible to be sure but Halifax came close to being chosen as PM rather than Churchill and he might have tried to do a deal with Hitler.