Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As said, the political climate in Britain, before 1939 was one of not wanting to do WW1 all over again, so appeasement was the option they went for.
The time was more in regards to the USSR needing to move stuff over the Urals and get their house in some sort of vague semblance of order, as both Hitler and Stalin knew he would eventually head that way.

Britain and France were hoping he'd have his fill if they handed over the chunk of Czechoslovakia. This turned out to be false, but that's what they went with.

As it happens, there are many quotes by western leaders hoping that the Nazis would kill off the Soviet union. After all, the Bolsheviks had kilometre czar and expropriated property, and Hitler was a business-friendly westerners who had a mutual admiration with Henry Ford and the boss of AT&T. It was a good expectations around, since the very purpose of the early Nazi and Italian fascist parties was as a group of thugs paid by heavy industry and agriculture to beat up union members and socialists, and that's the only reason that the Nazis had enough cars and money to send speakers all over Germany and become a competitive political party.

Britain and France weren't too tired after ww1, they were part of the nineteen countries who invaded Russia after ww1. They weren't fully mobilized but they had enough pep for a few marauding expeditionary groups.




Of course in this jubilee year, there are still a few moments to say happy birthday to the freedom fighters Steve Biko, hero of anti-apartheid, and of course the man of steel himself, Joseph Stalin, of blessed memory.

Imagine someone calling Hitler's memory "blessed" because of all the good he did...

Well his 10 million victims sure would like to disagree on blessed with pelicaniforce. Sadly they can't because Stalin murdered them...

This thread has certainly brought out the weird fantasizers. Also "the only reason" really made me laugh, good stuff.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Imagine someone calling Hitler's memory "blessed" because of all the good he did...

You don't have to imagine. There are thousands of people who will say, unabashedly, that Hitler was a great person, that he was a hero, that he had some good ideas. And they might tell you it's a joke, or purely a historical, academic appreciation, not an endorsement. They have their own style guide, it says to pretend they are just kidding, just joking. It says they can tell themselves it's a joke, just to make it easier. It says to draw false equivalencies to slander your victims, it says to hide in centrism, it says to make enough contradictory claims that people listening can't tell what is real or what you really believe. Something like three percent of the time, these people are cops.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

Hindsight is 20/20,

Appeasement was the name of the game, people thought they'd be doing trench warfare all over again, surprisngly Britain didn't want to do WW1 again.

So yes we let them hang out to dry because people still believed Hitler wouldn't and that by giving an inch they wouldn't have to fight over miles.

But again, inaction/ giving up a little in the hope that would be enough, is different to actively agreeing to carve up a nation.

Besides, if boots on the ground were needed to overthrow Hitler, why'd the USSR agree to the MR pact and then abide by it?

Strangely enough, because they also weren't in a position to do anything about it and also needed time, so the small players were used as bargaining chips.

Although the idea of the Entente stepping in to defend Poland from bothe the Nazi's and the USSR is an interesting one. That could only have gone well for everyone who wasn't Germany

There's a reason why everyone was trying to slow Hitler down without declaring war, nobody other than Germany and the French (around the Maginot line) were ready, and look how well the preparedness of the Entente went for them in Belgium and how much use the ML was.

There is nothing unusual in using the Germans against the Soviet Russia. Immediately after the signing of the Versailles Treaty, Britain forced the Germans to occupy former Russian territories, suppress leftist sentiments there and establish anti-Soviet regimes. These are the very Baltic states, which as you call "were seized by the Soviets." By modern standards, they were rather "democratized" by the Soviets. In addition, let us recall the "Unthinkable operation". The war of Britain against the USSR was not so illusory and the Chamberlain's negotiations with the Nazis could well have been applicable to the weakening of the soviets. But there was a Pact as result of very difficult intricacy of relations between Britain adn USSR. In the end, everyone won, except the Nazis. Than you are not happy?

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

I wonder why Poland wouldn't want Russian troops moving through Poland

These are the territories of Ukraine and Belarus, captured by Poland, into which Soviet troops entered after the disappearance of the Polish as an able state. In those days, this was not objectionable. Only now they are shouting about this. because Polish politicians are not allowed to talk about anything else. Well, think for yourself - what else can they talk about?

Disciple of fate wrote:
I admitted that Warsaw was a mistake in remembering. But that victory parade did happen. And so did the Soviet invasion of Poland. At the end of the day Germany and the Soviet Union hold final responsibility for the destruction of Poland as they physically marched in troops to end it.

Quit it with the Goebbels crap. Its ridiculous deflection.

This pressure on emotions and nothing more. And do not deny the fact that Goebbels personally put his hand to staging all this as a "joint action on the ruins of the defeated Polish".

Disciple of fate wrote:
No, everything points towards the NKVD. We know those who got killed were captured by the Soviet army, not the Germans. In 1940 the head of the NKVD Beria made the decision with the approval of Stalin. Plus the Soviets themselves documented the Katyn Massacre. The fact that German pistols were used is the weakest counter argument, as the Soviets had access to German pistols and it was even said they were preferred over Soviet ones by the NKVD.

The investigations are finished, its clear, it was the Soviets. Even the Soviet and Russian governments have admitted to it. Denying it is just silly.

The only thing that is known reliably is the lack of direct evidence and the falsity of documents on which Gorbachev relies. All existing "evidence" does not have a real basis and exist only due to the russophobia media background.
The pistols you're talking about are the Walter PPK in 7.65mm caliber. Very standard weapons for the NKVD, right? No. In fact, they usually had a Nagant revolver. And where did they get the German bimetallic cartridges produced since 1940, if no German weapons were supplied since 1933? This is a decadent Western philosophy, based on emotions, and not on reality

Disciple of fate wrote:
You obviously do care, as you're doing your best to deny the accusations against the country that did it.

There are no violations of the principles of history. Furthermore history is not a science. Take that from someone academically trained as a historian (amongst others), its not science its a humanities subject. You're the one ignoring historical reality and countering with 1940's Soviet propaganda.

We can not unequivocally blame the NKVD for Katyn until we have enough evidence. So far, the correct scientific approach will have several versions of what happened. but this is not done because of the of agressive politics, which has subordinated everything to itself.

Disciple of fate wrote:
You're literally arguing that they should have avoided war by going to war against Hitler?

This is their direct duty, according to the Treaty of Versailles. And common sense. The Entente was to enter the troops and disarm Germany. And what did they expect from an aggressive force that is gaining strength, which openly announces its aggressive plans?

Pelicanforce, you might as well have given birthday wishes to Hitler. No false equivalency here - if you sat Hitler and Stalin down for a friendly chat they probably would have agreed on just about everything but economics. Both were shameless authoritarians whose actions led to the murder of millions of people. I don't care what ideology that's in service of, it's wrong.

Might want to fix your qoutes as part of the last ones are mine and not Mozzyfuzzy's.

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

Hindsight is 20/20,

Appeasement was the name of the game, people thought they'd be doing trench warfare all over again, surprisngly Britain didn't want to do WW1 again.

So yes we let them hang out to dry because people still believed Hitler wouldn't and that by giving an inch they wouldn't have to fight over miles.

But again, inaction/ giving up a little in the hope that would be enough, is different to actively agreeing to carve up a nation.

Besides, if boots on the ground were needed to overthrow Hitler, why'd the USSR agree to the MR pact and then abide by it?

Strangely enough, because they also weren't in a position to do anything about it and also needed time, so the small players were used as bargaining chips.

Although the idea of the Entente stepping in to defend Poland from bothe the Nazi's and the USSR is an interesting one. That could only have gone well for everyone who wasn't Germany

There's a reason why everyone was trying to slow Hitler down without declaring war, nobody other than Germany and the French (around the Maginot line) were ready, and look how well the preparedness of the Entente went for them in Belgium and how much use the ML was.

There is nothing unusual in using the Germans against the Soviet Russia. Immediately after the signing of the Versailles Treaty, Britain forced the Germans to occupy former Russian territories, suppress leftist sentiments there and establish anti-Soviet regimes. These are the very Baltic states, which as you call "were seized by the Soviets." By modern standards, they were rather "democratized" by the Soviets. In addition, let us recall the "Unthinkable operation". The war of Britain against the USSR was not so illusory and the Chamberlain's negotiations with the Nazis could well have been applicable to the weakening of the councils. But there was a Pact as result of very difficult intricacy of relations between Britain adn USSR. In the end, everyone won, except the Nazis. Than you are not happy?

No, Germany had already gained the Russian areas thanks to the Soviet-German Brest-Litovsk agreement. Lenin ceded those territories to the Germans. Nothing British about it.

"Democratized"? Is that what were calling invading and violently suppressing the independence of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union these days?

Also operation unthinkable is nonsense to bring up, you know why? Because all countries have plans for wars against opponents. The US had one for Britain. The Soviets had one for Nazi-Germany etc etc. Its in the same vein as people arguing that Hitler was just defending himself against an imminent Soviet strike, a theory that gained some popularity with Icebreaker. Of course its pure garbage, but then a lot of popularized history doesn't take historical accuracy very far.

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

I wonder why Poland wouldn't want Russian troops moving through Poland

These are the territories of Ukraine and Belarus, captured by Poland, into which Soviet troops entered after the disappearance of the Polish as an able state. In those days, this was not objectionable. Only now they are shouting about this. because Polish politicians are not allowed to talk about anything else. Well, think for yourself - what else can they talk about?

No, those were territories of Poland, gained after Polish independence after Brest-Litovsk. That Stalin moved the border of 1945 Poland westwards does not diminish that fact.

Actually the invasion was objectionable, as it was of course in extreme violation of the 1932 Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact. The Soviets invaded Poland, why deny it?

 Freakazoitt wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
I admitted that Warsaw was a mistake in remembering. But that victory parade did happen. And so did the Soviet invasion of Poland. At the end of the day Germany and the Soviet Union hold final responsibility for the destruction of Poland as they physically marched in troops to end it.

Quit it with the Goebbels crap. Its ridiculous deflection.

This pressure on emotions and nothing more. And do not deny the fact that Goebbels personally put his hand to staging all this as a "joint action on the ruins of the defeated Polish".

Its pure debating deflection crap and you know it. The Soviets willingly went along with it, no need to get Goebbels involved anywhere in this.

 Freakazoitt wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
No, everything points towards the NKVD. We know those who got killed were captured by the Soviet army, not the Germans. In 1940 the head of the NKVD Beria made the decision with the approval of Stalin. Plus the Soviets themselves documented the Katyn Massacre. The fact that German pistols were used is the weakest counter argument, as the Soviets had access to German pistols and it was even said they were preferred over Soviet ones by the NKVD.

The investigations are finished, its clear, it was the Soviets. Even the Soviet and Russian governments have admitted to it. Denying it is just silly.

The only thing that is known reliably is the lack of direct evidence and the falsity of documents on which Gorbachev relies. All existing "evidence" does not have a real basis and exist only due to the russophobia media background.
The pistols you're talking about are the Walter PPK in 7.65mm caliber. Very standard weapons for the NKVD, right? No. In fact, they usually had a Nagant revolver. And where did they get the German bimetallic cartridges produced since 1940, if no German weapons were supplied since 1933? This is a decadent Western philosophy, based on emotions, and not on reality

Holy hell, you can't be serious. You just declare all the evidence to be 'fake' because it suits your narrative.

Actually yes, its pretty well documented that the NKVD used German pistols because the recoil was easier on the wrists during executions. Prolonged use of Nagant revolvers by executioners sometimes ended up in broken wrists, which is why German pistols were preferred. Look it up, the Soviets got German equipment until at least 1940 thanks to the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement of 1940, they even got German aircraft in 1940 thanks to it... Its just another weak deflection of a small detail buried under a mountain of evidence the NKVD did it.

Maybe you should stop with the "decadent Western philosophy, based on emotions" drivel if you're the one not aware of the facts and historical reality.

 Freakazoitt wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
You obviously do care, as you're doing your best to deny the accusations against the country that did it.

There are no violations of the principles of history. Furthermore history is not a science. Take that from someone academically trained as a historian (amongst others), its not science its a humanities subject. You're the one ignoring historical reality and countering with 1940's Soviet propaganda.

We can not unequivocally blame the NKVD for Katyn until we have enough evidence. So far, the correct scientific approach will have several versions of what happened. but this is not done because of the of agressive politics, which has subordinated everything to itself.

We have enough evidence, up to and including the paper trail. Stalin himself could rise from the grave and inform you the NKVD did it and you would still deny it.

The correct historical approach based on source material only has one really obvious version that has been confirmed by even the Soviets and later Russia itself. The other versions are only pushed by fringe groups furthering their own narrative. I mean the 'evidence' that the Germans did it is so weak that even the Soviets in 46 couldn't back that up in court. There is a reason that even now the Russian state still keeps certain files on Katyn classified. Why would they do that if it proves their innocence?

 Freakazoitt wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:
You're literally arguing that they should have avoided war by going to war against Hitler?

This is their direct duty, according to the Treaty of Versailles. And common sense. The Entente was to enter the troops and disarm Germany. And what did they expect from an aggressive force that is gaining strength, which openly announces its aggressive plans?

The point was arguing that they should go to war to avoid war is a paradox. I'm fine with the argument that they should have stopped Hitler sooner, but there is something to say for the fact that breaking the Treaty of Versailles was only natural, in 38 it obviously crossed the line,

pelicaniforce wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Imagine someone calling Hitler's memory "blessed" because of all the good he did...

You don't have to imagine. There are thousands of people who will say, unabashedly, that he was a great person, that he was a hero, that he had some good ideas.

Not just thousands. There are easily millions of people who think Stalin was one of the greatest people to have ever lived. Stalin remains a very popular hero figure for many people.
Calling Stalin's memory 'blessed' certainly isn't weird. Imagine if Hitler had won WW2. We would likely be praising his memory now and toasting all the great achievements he made. History is written by the victors. And the victors always portray themselves as heroes. Therefore Stalin is in the history books as a hero.

 Luciferian wrote:
Pelicanforce, you might as well have given birthday wishes to Hitler. No false equivalency here - if you sat Hitler and Stalin down for a friendly chat they probably would have agreed on just about everything but economics. Both were shameless authoritarians whose actions led to the murder of millions of people. I don't care what ideology that's in service of, it's wrong.

I posit that they would not. In support of this claim I offer the attempt of the nazis to exterminate the slavic peoples and the efforts of the USSR under Stalin to prevent this.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Imagine someone calling Hitler's memory "blessed" because of all the good he did...

You don't have to imagine. There are thousands of people who will say, unabashedly, that he was a great person, that he was a hero, that he had some good ideas.

Not just thousands. There are easily millions of people who think Stalin was one of the greatest people to have ever lived. Stalin remains a very popular hero figure for many people.
Calling Stalin's memory 'blessed' certainly isn't weird. Imagine if Hitler had won WW2. We would likely be praising his memory now and toasting all the great achievements he made. History is written by the victors. And the victors always portray themselves as heroes. Therefore Stalin is in the history books as a hero.

While I agree with the overall sentiment on perception and how history is shaped, I have to disagree on the blessed part. We can certainly lets say appreciate the impact and influence Stalin had on history. Yes he beat Hitler, which is an important part in some 'forgiving' what Stalin did. But the point is that history has clearly been updated since Soviet propaganda times. History on Stalin is now nuanced, not just written by victors. We even have German historians writing about Stalin for example. That is the key difference between 70 years ago and now.

In the current day with information available at almost the touch of a button, nobody should ever combine Stalin with the word "blessed". Its just such an incredible disconnect with empathy for other humans.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Pelicanforce, you might as well have given birthday wishes to Hitler. No false equivalency here - if you sat Hitler and Stalin down for a friendly chat they probably would have agreed on just about everything but economics. Both were shameless authoritarians whose actions led to the murder of millions of people. I don't care what ideology that's in service of, it's wrong.

I posit that they would not. In support of this claim I offer the attempt of the nazis to exterminate the slavic peoples and the efforts of the USSR under Stalin to prevent this.

While there are many many differences between Hitler and Stalin that Luciferian ignores, in essence he is right. Just because Stalin beat Hitler doesn't excuse the millions he killed, like Luciferian says, it is wrong.

Rosebuddy wrote:


I posit that they would not. In support of this claim I offer the attempt of the nazis to exterminate the slavic peoples and the efforts of the USSR under Stalin to prevent this.

The USSR killed millions of its own people. It was directly responsible for the starvation of 7 million ethnic Ukrainians in one year, among other atrocities. About the only thing they ever accomplished with efficiency.

The spirit of the Bolshevik Revolution died the day that Trotsky turned the guns on the sailors at Kronstadt in 1921. The Bolsheviks themselves probably all ended up dead or imprisoned shortly after, at the hands of Stalin none the less. So if that's the kind of guy you want to carry water for, at least you know what you have to look forward to, I guess.

TIL that, despite waging the most bloody and costly war in the history of mankind against each other, Hitler and Stalin were actually BFFs.

You know who was actually BFFs? Henry Ford and Adolf Hitler. They probably even both got drunk and said "I love you, man" at some point.

edit: spelling derp

Who would be villain enough to have a beer with a capitalist, am I right? You're right, Stalin is the mass murderer who deserves our praise.

 feeder wrote:
TIL that, despite waging the most bloody and costly war in the history of mankind against each other, Hitler and Stalin were actually BFFs.

You know who was actually BFFs? Henry Ford and Adolf Hitler. They probably even both got drunk and said "I love you, man" at some point.

edit: spelling derp

Actually, Hitler and Stalin absolutely despised one another. They were both brutal dictators whose regimes killed many people, but that is where all similarities end. They were fundamentally opposed to one another and the only thing that stopped them from instantly trying to murder the other at the beginning of the war was that they had a common enemy in Great Britain. And even then, both tried to ally with Great Britain against the other first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Imagine someone calling Hitler's memory "blessed" because of all the good he did...

You don't have to imagine. There are thousands of people who will say, unabashedly, that he was a great person, that he was a hero, that he had some good ideas.

Not just thousands. There are easily millions of people who think Stalin was one of the greatest people to have ever lived. Stalin remains a very popular hero figure for many people.
Calling Stalin's memory 'blessed' certainly isn't weird. Imagine if Hitler had won WW2. We would likely be praising his memory now and toasting all the great achievements he made. History is written by the victors. And the victors always portray themselves as heroes. Therefore Stalin is in the history books as a hero.

While I agree with the overall sentiment on perception and how history is shaped, I have to disagree on the blessed part. We can certainly lets say appreciate the impact and influence Stalin had on history. Yes he beat Hitler, which is an important part in some 'forgiving' what Stalin did. But the point is that history has clearly been updated since Soviet propaganda times. History on Stalin is now nuanced, not just written by victors. We even have German historians writing about Stalin for example. That is the key difference between 70 years ago and now.

In the current day with information available at almost the touch of a button, nobody should ever combine Stalin with the word "blessed". Its just such an incredible disconnect with empathy for other humans.

And yet many people would not hesitate at all to agree with the statement that Stalin's memory is blessed. And it is not that these people are lacking in empathy. Yes, more nuanced writing is now available. But that is not what is going to stick in the public mind. Stalin's image in the public mind has already been firmly set in place by propaganda. Propaganda always wins out over nuanced scholarly writing in the end.

 Luciferian wrote:
Who would be villain enough to have a beer with a capitalist, am I right?

It was their shared fondness for efficiency in the workplace that made them friends, but it was their virulent antisemitism that made them lovers.

You're right, Stalin is the mass murderer who deserves our praise.

Does he, though? It's 2017. I've lost the ability to tell when someone is serious on the internet or not.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Imagine someone calling Hitler's memory "blessed" because of all the good he did...

You don't have to imagine. There are thousands of people who will say, unabashedly, that he was a great person, that he was a hero, that he had some good ideas.

Not just thousands. There are easily millions of people who think Stalin was one of the greatest people to have ever lived. Stalin remains a very popular hero figure for many people.
Calling Stalin's memory 'blessed' certainly isn't weird. Imagine if Hitler had won WW2. We would likely be praising his memory now and toasting all the great achievements he made. History is written by the victors. And the victors always portray themselves as heroes. Therefore Stalin is in the history books as a hero.

While I agree with the overall sentiment on perception and how history is shaped, I have to disagree on the blessed part. We can certainly lets say appreciate the impact and influence Stalin had on history. Yes he beat Hitler, which is an important part in some 'forgiving' what Stalin did. But the point is that history has clearly been updated since Soviet propaganda times. History on Stalin is now nuanced, not just written by victors. We even have German historians writing about Stalin for example. That is the key difference between 70 years ago and now.

In the current day with information available at almost the touch of a button, nobody should ever combine Stalin with the word "blessed". Its just such an incredible disconnect with empathy for other humans.

And yet many people would not hesitate at all to agree with the statement that Stalin's memory is blessed. And it is not that these people are lacking in empathy. Yes, more nuanced writing is now available. But that is not what is going to stick in the public mind. Stalin's image in the public mind has already been firmly set in place by propaganda. Propaganda always wins out over nuanced scholarly writing in the end.

Well if you're talking about the general public that is less well informed and aware than sure, saying blessed is odd, but they might not know enough.

Knowing the history and then talking about a blessed memory as an individual however, that shows a great lack of human empathy.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No, Germany had already gained the Russian areas thanks to the Soviet-German Brest-Litovsk agreement. Lenin ceded those territories to the Germans. Nothing British about it.

We are talking about the fact that Germany was forbidden to have troops everywhere ... except for territories captured in the east. and it continued to seize new territories. and established there anti-Soviet regimes under British pressure. And it was the Versailles peace that forced them to continue the invasion campaign, which abolished the peace treaty of Soviet Russia with Germany. Moreover, it questioned the legitimacy of the existence of Soviet Russia as a country. Such a "noble" act. The ugly face of imperialism, spitting even on the millions of victims of the war of its own people and making its offspring - Nazism, as result of such imperialistic politics and ogranized economy depression. What a shame!

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

"Democratized"? Is that what were calling invading and violently suppressing the independence of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union these days?

And what is the situation better now? There was one Union, now another Union. Only the color of the flag changed from red to blue. The same helpless government that operates at the behest of a big brother and the absence of its own economy. And the NATO troops who occupied them under the stupid and naive pretext "the Russians are coming!".

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Also operation unthinkable is nonsense to bring up, you know why? Because all countries have plans for wars against opponents. The US had one for Britain. The Soviets had one for Nazi-Germany etc etc. Its in the same vein as people arguing that Hitler was just defending himself against an imminent Soviet strike, a theory that gained some popularity with Icebreaker. Of course its pure garbage, but then a lot of popularized history doesn't take historical accuracy very far.

At least read the details of this plan. This is an offensive plan, not a defensive one. In the long run, it was aimed at the Soviet regime. In addition, it admitted to some extent the restoration of the Nazi regime. All this has long-standing roots from the plans of Britain against the Russian Empire and is not a plan "just in case". About the Icebreaker. The book, of course, is very strange and looks like a rough trolling for uneducated people. But preparations for war really were. Only they were for a longer period and serious mistakes were made in assessing the tactics and weapons of Germany. Also, the poorly organized communications, supply and command .

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No, those were territories of Poland, gained after Polish independence after Brest-Litovsk. That Stalin moved the border of 1945 Poland westwards does not diminish that fact.

Actually the invasion was objectionable, as it was of course in extreme violation of the 1932 Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact. The Soviets invaded Poland, why deny it?

Because it makes everyone perceive this as a simultaneous blow to Poland from both sides, while it was a blow from Germany with the inactivity of the Entente and the arrogant optimism of the Polish government with it's incopetence in reality. Obviously, the agreement with Poland was a forced step. In the occupied Polish territories, belarusians and ukrainians lived, whom the Poles regarded as their servants. These were lands received as new estates for the polish masters, and not as the birthplace of the poles. it would be a doubtful step, after all this, to give people to Germany. Of course, one can challenge the formal validity of this. But at that time, many agreements were already broken, especially on the part of Germany. Again, the Entente's guilt that she did not follow the observance of all treaties.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

ts pure debating deflection crap and you know it. The Soviets willingly went along with it, no need to get Goebbels involved anywhere in this.

As long as Goebbels propaganda is used about how this happened, Goebbels will be involved in this.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Actually yes, its pretty well documented that the NKVD used German pistols because the recoil was easier on the wrists during executions. Prolonged use of Nagant revolvers by executioners sometimes ended up in broken wrists, which is why German pistols were preferred. Look it up, the Soviets got German equipment until at least 1940 thanks to the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement of 1940, they even got German aircraft in 1940 thanks to it... Its just another weak deflection of a small detail buried under a mountain of evidence the NKVD did it.

The version of Goebbels, which is now considered "official" - is simply absurd. Polish officer prisoners are for some reason taken from different camps to the one that will later be in the German occupation. And they are shot in the territory of the active pioneer camp (camp for children's recreation and open for visiting by all people) ... not far from the boss's house. With the... german pistols, which were not in the regular arsenal of the NKVD. on the verdict of the NKVD troika, which liquidated two years ago in reality. and it happens precisely on the territory that will then be fenced by the Germans and for tresspassers being shot there without a warning? add here the fake documents that were forged under Gorbachev ... Guys, it obviously requires an investigation

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The point was arguing that they should go to war to avoid war is a paradox.

If you include logic, and not play with words, then there is no paradox.

Of blessed memory is an honorific and means that the speaker is blessed to carry a memory of the decedent.

Today is the birthday (100) of the Cheka, the secret police force formed by Lenin, without which it would have taken much fewer than seventy years for the forces of reaction and the US to destroy the soviet republics, and millions of people may never have been fed and the free people of the planet may never have reached space.

Iron_Captain wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Imagine someone calling Hitler's memory "blessed" because of all the good he did...

You don't have to imagine. There are thousands of people who will say, unabashedly, that he was a great person, that he was a hero, that he had some good ideas.

Not just thousands. There are easily millions of people who think Stalin was one of the greatest people to have ever lived. Stalin remains a very popular hero figure for many people.
Calling Stalin's memory 'blessed' certainly isn't weird. Imagine if Hitler had won WW2. We would likely be praising his memory now and toasting all the great achievements he made. History is written by the victors. And the victors always portray themselves as heroes. Therefore Stalin is in the history books as a hero.

You know there are two kinds of propaganda. One is that Stalin certainly was not called a winner in our country, he was not taught more than a mention. It's a bit like when my elementary teacher would give a lesson about Dr. King. We had a parent in the classroom that day, who was black, and she spoke up and said actually she thought Malcom X happened to have been more influential entail on the specific topic that day. It was as if a crime had been committed and we could all get in trouble. Just saying the name was sedition. The teacher, who is white, said that include Malcom X, she didn't know much but he was less important and he was a radical, dangerous.

The other kind of propaganda is that I didn't mean thousands of people saying Stalin did good, I said you don't have to imagine people praising Hitler for supposedly doing good. Right now at this moment, people are telling "jokes" about loving butler, "jokes" and sincere allegations that Jews did this or that. These are also the same people who claim to be anti communist, that communism killed more russIans or more Chinese than there were Russians or Chinese also be at the time. These people are actually telling you something important: that they are entitled, hateful, and will say anything to obfuscate how hateful they are.

feeder wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
Who would be villain enough to have a beer with a capitalist, am I right?

It was their shared fondness for efficiency in the workplace that made them friends, but it was their virulent antisemitism that made them lovers.

You're right, Stalin is the mass murderer who deserves our praise.

Does he, though? It's 2017. I've lost the ability to tell when someone is serious on the internet or not.

No this is a real question though. Who is more disgusting: Adolf Hitler, or the industrialist who encouraged him and funded him, helped William Hearst hide the fascists' crimes, built tires for the Nazis' extermination trucks even while people were fighting to defeat them? Yeah, having a beer with henry Ford is a horrible stain on anyone.

You know, this is (at least partially) why a large chunk of Europe is afraid of Russia: the complete unwillingness to admit even the tiniest of faults. There are no Russian soldiers in Crimea, there's been no radioactive leak anywhere, Russia didn't systematically cheat at Sotji and Stalin did nothing wrong. How can any country ever trust anything Russia says when the lies continue even after being caught with one hand in the proverbial cookie jar?

Comparing the EU to the Stalinist Soviet Union is disgraceful, and if you want to know why the Baltics are afraid of Russia then maybe you should consider the IT attacks on Estonia or Russia's involvement in Crimea?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You know, this is (at least partially) why a large chunk of Europe is afraid of Russia: the complete unwillingness to admit even the tiniest of faults. There are no Russian soldiers in Crimea, there's been no radioactive leak anywhere, Russia didn't systematically cheat at Sotji and Stalin did nothing wrong. How can any country ever trust anything Russia says when the lies continue even after being caught with one hand in the proverbial cookie jar?

Comparing the EU to the Stalinist Soviet Union is disgraceful, and if you want to know why the Baltics are afraid of Russia then maybe you should consider the IT attacks on Estonia or Russia's involvement in Crimea?

If this appeal to me, then none of this is true.
There is no point in hiding that everyone knew who these green men were in the Crimea. I myself wonder how the radiation leakage occurred on Mayak and there is no benefit from having this contaminant responsible for numerous accidents and pollution. Sochi is known to me only as a vivid example of corruption. And the crimes of Stalin are obvious. But this does not mean that you can invent fairy tales and throw dirt. Do you know that in the Baltics censorship, infringement of the rights of the population, brainwashing, artificially inflated hysteria and a dead economy? But Russia has no political or economic interest in climbing into their affairs. Pumped with hysteria in the media do not notice how to step over the line and turn into just russophobes.

pelicaniforce wrote:
Of blessed memory is an honorific and means that the speaker is blessed to carry a memory of the decedent.

Today is the birthday (100) of the Cheka, the secret police force formed by Lenin, without which it would have taken much fewer than seventy years for the forces of reaction and the US to destroy the soviet republics, and millions of people may never have been fed and the free people of the planet may never have reached space.

Well its certainly horrific to use.

Also the Cheka, really? If it wasn't for the Cheka and its successors millions of Soviet citizens might also not have gotten murdered. What a horrible world that would have been to live in. /sarcasm

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You know, this is (at least partially) why a large chunk of Europe is afraid of Russia: the complete unwillingness to admit even the tiniest of faults. There are no Russian soldiers in Crimea, there's been no radioactive leak anywhere, Russia didn't systematically cheat at Sotji and Stalin did nothing wrong. How can any country ever trust anything Russia says when the lies continue even after being caught with one hand in the proverbial cookie jar?

Comparing the EU to the Stalinist Soviet Union is disgraceful, and if you want to know why the Baltics are afraid of Russia then maybe you should consider the IT attacks on Estonia or Russia's involvement in Crimea?

If this appeal to me, then none of this is true.
There is no point in hiding that everyone knew who these green men were in the Crimea. I myself wonder how the radiation leakage occurred on Mayak and there is no benefit from having this contaminant responsible for numerous accidents and pollution. Sochi is known to me only as a vivid example of corruption. And the crimes of Stalin are obvious. But this does not mean that you can invent fairy tales and throw dirt. Do you know that in the Baltics censorship, infringement of the rights of the population, brainwashing, artificially inflated hysteria and a dead economy? But Russia has no political or economic interest in climbing into their affairs. Pumped with hysteria in the media do not notice how to step over the line and turn into just russophobes.

Whataboutistm, as expected. How is the economic situation of the Baltics or any censorship there related to Russian wrongdoing? I'll give you a hint, in big, bolded letters: IT ISN'T . Stop deflecting.

As for the "fairy tales", you're the one trying to claim the Soviet Union's innocence in an event that even Russia has admitted was perpetrated by the Soviet Union. When even the dead horse you're beating is asking you to stop, perhaps you should take notice?

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No, Germany had already gained the Russian areas thanks to the Soviet-German Brest-Litovsk agreement. Lenin ceded those territories to the Germans. Nothing British about it.

We are talking about the fact that Germany was forbidden to have troops everywhere ... except for territories captured in the east. and it continued to seize new territories. and established there anti-Soviet regimes under British pressure. And it was the Versailles peace that forced them to continue the invasion campaign, which abolished the peace treaty of Soviet Russia with Germany. Moreover, it questioned the legitimacy of the existence of Soviet Russia as a country. Such a "noble" act. The ugly face of imperialism, spitting even on the millions of victims of the war of its own people and making its offspring - Nazism, as result of such imperialistic politics and ogranized economy depression. What a shame!

Actually the Versailles Treaty invalidated Brest-Litovsk. But that doesn't negate the Soviets gave up what would become Poland in 1917.

Meanwhile you complain about imperialism which is exactly what the Soviets engaged in in 1939. Its the pot calling the kettle black.

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

"Democratized"? Is that what were calling invading and violently suppressing the independence of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union these days?

And what is the situation better now? There was one Union, now another Union. Only the color of the flag changed from red to blue. The same helpless government that operates at the behest of a big brother and the absence of its own economy. And the NATO troops who occupied them under the stupid and naive pretext "the Russians are coming!".

Better now? You mean with the Baltics free of Soviet opression, yes very much better for their people.

The equation with the EU is laughable. Let me know when the EU sends in its secret police to murder people fighting for independence! NATO and the EU were a choice, 39 wasn't. For the Baltics the Russians came not once, but twice. Sorry its easy to dismiss that fear if you're not the one invaded and brutalized.

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Also operation unthinkable is nonsense to bring up, you know why? Because all countries have plans for wars against opponents. The US had one for Britain. The Soviets had one for Nazi-Germany etc etc. Its in the same vein as people arguing that Hitler was just defending himself against an imminent Soviet strike, a theory that gained some popularity with Icebreaker. Of course its pure garbage, but then a lot of popularized history doesn't take historical accuracy very far.

At least read the details of this plan. This is an offensive plan, not a defensive one. In the long run, it was aimed at the Soviet regime. In addition, it admitted to some extent the restoration of the Nazi regime. All this has long-standing roots from the plans of Britain against the Russian Empire and is not a plan "just in case". About the Icebreaker. The book, of course, is very strange and looks like a rough trolling for uneducated people. But preparations for war really were. Only they were for a longer period and serious mistakes were made in assessing the tactics and weapons of Germany. Also, the poorly organized communications, supply and command .

So? Planning for war is what militaries are supposed to do. Operation Unthinkable was literally unthinkable because the Allies had nowhere near the required troops. It was a fantasy you try to put up as some definitive proof. Its exactly what Suvurov did in Icebreaker. They are horrible pieces of fantastical writing to create the perception of a real threat.

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No, those were territories of Poland, gained after Polish independence after Brest-Litovsk. That Stalin moved the border of 1945 Poland westwards does not diminish that fact.

Actually the invasion was objectionable, as it was of course in extreme violation of the 1932 Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact. The Soviets invaded Poland, why deny it?

Because it makes everyone perceive this as a simultaneous blow to Poland from both sides, while it was a blow from Germany with the inactivity of the Entente and the arrogant optimism of the Polish government with it's incopetence in reality. Obviously, the agreement with Poland was a forced step. In the occupied Polish territories, belarusians and ukrainians lived, whom the Poles regarded as their servants. These were lands received as new estates for the polish masters, and not as the birthplace of the poles. it would be a doubtful step, after all this, to give people to Germany. Of course, one can challenge the formal validity of this. But at that time, many agreements were already broken, especially on the part of Germany. Again, the Entente's guilt that she did not follow the observance of all treaties.

No it was very much a simultaneous blow. The fact it wasn't timed exactly the same is because of Nazi secrecy.

Neither the Soviets nor the Poles treated minority populations on their direct border well. You can't blame the Western Allies for the Soviet invasion of Poland. That's on the Soviet Union.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
[q

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

ts pure debating deflection crap and you know it. The Soviets willingly went along with it, no need to get Goebbels involved anywhere in this.

As long as Goebbels propaganda is used about how this happened, Goebbels will be involved in this.

As long as people keep trying to bring up Goebbels to deflect from historical reality I will point out what crap it is.

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Actually yes, its pretty well documented that the NKVD used German pistols because the recoil was easier on the wrists during executions. Prolonged use of Nagant revolvers by executioners sometimes ended up in broken wrists, which is why German pistols were preferred. Look it up, the Soviets got German equipment until at least 1940 thanks to the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement of 1940, they even got German aircraft in 1940 thanks to it... Its just another weak deflection of a small detail buried under a mountain of evidence the NKVD did it.

The version of Goebbels, which is now considered "official" - is simply absurd. Polish officer prisoners are for some reason taken from different camps to the one that will later be in the German occupation. And they are shot in the territory of the active pioneer camp (camp for children's recreation and open for visiting by all people) ... not far from the boss's house. With the... german pistols, which were not in the regular arsenal of the NKVD. on the verdict of the NKVD troika, which liquidated two years ago in reality. and it happens precisely on the territory that will then be fenced by the Germans and for tresspassers being shot there without a warning? add here the fake documents that were forged under Gorbachev ... Guys, it obviously requires an investigation

No need, we had several. The perpetrator admitted it even, it really is case closed no matter how many ridiculous points you bring up, like this:

The Kuomintang had German weapons in the 1930's war against Japan. Now German weapons obviously meant that Germans were fighting Japanese by your logic.
Also the NKVD death squads were mostly disabled, but still were reactivated as required such as in Katyn.

No serious historian disagrees that the Soviets did it, neither did the Soviets or the Russians. Face reality and stop with the "emotions" as you call it.

 Freakazoitt wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The point was arguing that they should go to war to avoid war is a paradox.

If you include logic, and not play with words, then there is no paradox.

You literally said to avoid war they should have gone to war. No twisting words required for that paradox.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Whataboutistm, as expected. How is the economic situation of the Baltics or any censorship there related to Russian wrongdoing? I'll give you a hint, in big, bolded letters: IT ISN'T . Stop deflecting.

As for the "fairy tales", you're the one trying to claim the Soviet Union's innocence in an event that even Russia has admitted was perpetrated by the Soviet Union. When even the dead horse you're beating is asking you to stop, perhaps you should take notice?

Whataboutism? Do you want a dispute for the sake of argument, clinging to me a cliche of "Internet warriors". In the Baltic there is no threat of "Russian attack". But there are other bad things happening there. And what is the reaction of the West? No. It is forbidden to talk about this. But about invented threats - you can scream. And what is the result? Russia turns away from the Baltic, there is no trade, there are no ties. The oil pipeline will go through the Baltic Sea. And they let them continue to yell about the invented threat and not to interfere with their occupation by the troops of NATO. Shameful "governments" that has no independence, but believe they freed from evil USSR and evil russians. Do you know that any country can be so accused, that it turns out to an evil empire? And when the lie is invented by the State Department and they are echoed by puppets from the EU, it turns out to be a very loud lie. And attempts to say something against even the most obviously dubious examples of accusations, you call the reason to "everyone" can hate the country? it's very impudent.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Actually the Versailles Treaty invalidated Brest-Litovsk. But that doesn't negate the Soviets gave up what would become Poland in 1917.

Lenin thought that the Polish and other countries would also want to change the regime, but was mistaken. And then Poland appeared as a country that was hostile to socialism and Soviet Russia, casting doubt on the idea of ​​a world revolution. here you can already talk about the direct confrontation between two different countries, hostile to each other. we could condemn the hypothetical war of the USSR with Poland, where there would be no outside forces and the USSR would be the first to attack, but it did not happen. However, the emergence of Nazi Germany was an even greater threat. the incompetence of the Polish government and the indistinct position of Britain led to such a strange and ugly Pact of the Molotov-Ribbentrop. But if you look at the whole picture, it's a forced measure. Also, it must be understood that the territories torn away from Poland would fall into the hands of the Nazis, where the population would be methodically destroyed. I foresee objections that Stalin also killed people. But eliminating certain dangerous for the regime people is not the same thing as total elimination of the whole nation. And Nazis certainly whould't stop if they were not stopped

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Better now? You mean with the Baltics free of Soviet opression, yes very much better for their people.

You are right. This is their choice how they want to live. At least they can now emigrate if there are problems with income (and by the way they are actively doing it). But to call the Soviet regime evil and supressing, forgetting that before they had a dictatorship (yes, all three of them) - this is one-sided view.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The equation with the EU is laughable. Let me know when the EU sends in its secret police to murder people fighting for independence! NATO and the EU were a choice, 39 wasn't. For the Baltics the Russians came not once, but twice. Sorry its easy to dismiss that fear if you're not the one invaded and brutalized.

There is no direct similarity in everything, but there is no independent economy and politics. people's thoughts are dictated from outside exactly as it was dictated from Moscow. This are similarities.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

So? Planning for war is what militaries are supposed to do. Operation Unthinkable was literally unthinkable because the Allies had nowhere near the required troops. It was a fantasy you try to put up as some definitive proof. Its exactly what Suvurov did in Icebreaker. They are horrible pieces of fantastical writing to create the perception of a real threat.

I did not say that the Operation unthinkable was supposed to be real, but that Britain perceived the USSR as a possible enemy.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No it was very much a simultaneous blow. The fact it wasn't timed exactly the same is because of Nazi secrecy.

This is how the rewriteers of history want to present it. This is the invasion of Germany into Poland, which crushed the army and the Polish government ceased to exist. This is the main thing. And the participation of the Red Army could not change the fate of the Polish. And again I repeat that the territory occupied by the USSR was not the territory where the Poles originally lived. The Entente drew a line where the Polish ends and recognized that the Red Army has the right to occupy these territories. And surprise - this line is still the border of Poland. maybe, it is necessary that the Polish should attack the Belarus and the Ukraine in order to "return" them? So you need to take into account all the details of this, and not draw a picture of a coordinated simultaneous strike from both sides, tearing up the Poland. Because this is a purposeful representation of the country as "evil." It was a black page of history, but one does not have to give oneself completely to a one-sided view of what is happening, because if this goes on, then it turns out that Nazism is the kindness that saved Europe from evil.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Neither the Soviets nor the Poles treated minority populations on their direct border well. You can't blame the Western Allies for the Soviet invasion of Poland. That's on the Soviet Union.

Allies? Acted more like traitors

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No need, we had several. The perpetrator admitted it even, it really is case closed no matter how many ridiculous points you bring up, like this:

This is how Polish politicians behave. they are afraid that new facts may appear and do not want an investigation. when russia found another burial, it invited the Poland for a joint survey (otherwise everyone would have accused Russia that it had set up the results of the investigation). But the Polandball did not agree and even banned mentioning the finding on it's media. So, we will not know the truth.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

The Kuomintang had German weapons in the 1930's war against Japan. Now German weapons obviously meant that Germans were fighting Japanese by your logic.

This is not just a "logical" conclusion, but knowledge of the specifics as how NKVD was armed. Walther PPK could fall into the hands of the NKVD-man only as a personal weapon. but then the personal weapons did not have enough ammunition to arrange a mass execution. And it's not easy to get these weapons. The trade treaty that was mentioned was a planes and resourses. I did not hear anything about pistols.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Also the NKVD death squads were mostly disabled, but still were reactivated as required such as in Katyn.

It was impossible. Liquidation is liquidation. Stalin would have shot those NKVD members.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

No serious historian disagrees that the Soviets did it, neither did the Soviets or the Russians. Face reality and stop with the "emotions" as you call it.

It does not matter they agree or disagree. If two gangsters have agreed and dumped blame on their deceased accomplice - this does not mean that he is guilty. It requires a routine investigation as it is done in the investigation of murders. Refuse to do this and rely on the version of the criminal? I do not want.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

You literally said to avoid war they should have gone to war. No twisting words required for that paradox.

To prevent violence it's requires to cause violence against the bandit. Same situation. They did nothing to stop Hitler and he inevitably began to cause violence. And then other countries still had to use violence against him. it was inevitable Many people died because he wasn't stopped. that's what I mean.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Look, in 1917 the Baltics managed to shake off Russian opression. In 1991 the Soviets finally left and the Baltics invited NATO to make sure the Russians wouldn't be back a third time. Its hardly an unfounded fear when less than 30 years ago they were still occupied. Sure it would likely not happen again, but when it already did twice the last 100 years you better make damn sure there isn't going to be a third time. NATO being the 'occupier' is hilarious though, I think your dictionary has messed up definitions.

Russia will not get away from them anywhere. It's a neighbor who can not just disappear, no matter what they try to do. And they can choose what to do-or play a fictional threat, forcing Russia to turn away from them or to be friends, having at least taxes for transporting goods through their territory. They choose the first, having nothing useful from that choice. In general, now most of the swollen conflicts are to get the country to get into debt. The majority of possible wars or preparations for wars will end in the fact that the country will be in debt. Hence, war is an integral part of capitalism.

Frankly, not being allowed to talk about things is not an issue for you. The issue for you is that you're making any sort of reasoned discussion impossible in the first place.

Look, in 1917 the Baltics managed to shake off Russian opression. In 1991 the Soviets finally left and the Baltics invited NATO to make sure the Russians wouldn't be back a third time. Its hardly an unfounded fear when less than 30 years ago they were still occupied. Sure it would likely not happen again, but when it already did twice the last 100 years you better make damn sure there isn't going to be a third time. NATO being the 'occupier' is hilarious though, I think your dictionary has messed up definitions.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You know, this is (at least partially) why a large chunk of Europe is afraid of Russia: the complete unwillingness to admit even the tiniest of faults. There are no Russian soldiers in Crimea, there's been no radioactive leak anywhere, Russia didn't systematically cheat at Sotji and Stalin did nothing wrong. How can any country ever trust anything Russia says when the lies continue even after being caught with one hand in the proverbial cookie jar?

Comparing the EU to the Stalinist Soviet Union is disgraceful, and if you want to know why the Baltics are afraid of Russia then maybe you should consider the IT attacks on Estonia or Russia's involvement in Crimea?

That is very unfair to say. Firstly because all governments and all countries are extremely reluctant to admit they do or did something wrong. Russia is far from unique in that regard. Secondly because Stalin wasn't the leader of Russia, but of the Soviet Union. Stalin wasn't Russian at all. And also, the present-day Russian government, which does see itself as the successor of the Soviet Union, is quite open about Stalin's crimes. Hell, even the Soviet Union was already very open about Stalin's crimes as soon as Khrushchev came to power and destalinisation began. "Stalin did nothing wrong" fell apart as soon as Stalin died. Many people still see him as a hero, but the Russian government certainly is not treating him as a hero. Instead, they tend to approach Stalin as the controversial figure he is, acknowledging he did both great good and great evil. Furthermore, the presence of Russian soldiers in Crimea was also acknowledged as soon as the secrecy was no longer required for the military operation. It is everything but a fault. It in fact was a very well-executed operation.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You know, this is (at least partially) why a large chunk of Europe is afraid of Russia: the complete unwillingness to admit even the tiniest of faults. There are no Russian soldiers in Crimea, there's been no radioactive leak anywhere, Russia didn't systematically cheat at Sotji and Stalin did nothing wrong. How can any country ever trust anything Russia says when the lies continue even after being caught with one hand in the proverbial cookie jar?

Comparing the EU to the Stalinist Soviet Union is disgraceful, and if you want to know why the Baltics are afraid of Russia then maybe you should consider the IT attacks on Estonia or Russia's involvement in Crimea?

That is very unfair to say. Firstly because all governments and all countries are extremely reluctant to admit they do or did something wrong. Russia is far from unique in that regard.

"Everyone does it!" is the stock excuse used to defend Russia whenever this argument is brought up, but it's simply not true. Not everyone runs state-sponsored cheating programmes for the Olympics, not everyone denies nuclear accidents after everyone and their dog knows something's gone wrong, and not everyone invades neighbouring countries while pretending nothing's going on. It's just blatantly not true.

Are other countries also reluctant to admit to having done something wrong. Sure, it's human nature. There's an important difference in degree, however.

I'll take your point about de-Stalinification, but what the government of Russia does and what its population does is two separate things. There's plenty of people like Freakazoit who will pop up to defend Stalin in absurdum. The argument about Stalin being Georgian is a bit irrelevant; Hitler was Austrian, but he led Germany. The Soviet Union was, for all intents and purposes, Russia and Friends.

AlmightyWalrus, you violate the bounds of decency, no one owes you anything.

 Freakazoitt wrote:
AlmightyWalrus, you violate the bounds of decency, no one owes you anything.

Who said anything about owing anyone?

You're the one who started this thread, you can't attack people for calling out how bogus the entire premise is.