Stalin's Crimes

This.
Mods pls.

as a demsoc i oppose this anarkiddie chauvinism, i dont even support stalin but stop trying to bully central planning-ists

Grover Furr says the NKVD had nothing to do with it, the Nazis did it all. prove he's wrong.

Fuck off to /fur/

If you captured Nazi POW's would you let them live? Neither to the reactionary polish goverment.

fuck off to /b/

anyway commies are banned on /fur/

Attached: 1421600994497.png (900x700, 269.44K)

Also, these were Polish officers. Often Nazis would forcibly recruit soldiers from the occupied countries.

Not how it works. It was the Nazis who found the mass graves. Why would they report a massacre they did?

...

Attached: 1448871520309.jpg (318x322, 31.2K)

So if you are in vietnam and you burn down a whole village it isn't your fault because you were drafted?

Attached: goebbels_01.jpg (1264x1772, 1.06M)

Attached: 1494437491810.jpg (1000x994, 64.12K)

Do you have any proof of this?

Killing nazis and their collaborators is not a "war crime." In fact it is a crime against humanity not to do so.

lul wut

do you even know how the invasion of poland went down

foxnews.com/opinion/2010/12/07/fdr-massacre-katyn.html

What did he mean by this?

Attached: fdr stalin.jpeg (1781x1562, 584.46K)

soviethistory.msu.edu/1943-2/katyn-forest-massacre/katyn-forest-massacre-texts/order-for-the-katyn-massacre/

archives.gov/research/foreign-policy/katyn-massacre

I know fascists were a presence in pre-war Poland and towards the end of the war they massively joined anti-communist and openly anti-Semitic and anti-democratic underground, but you are terribly wrong, my dude.

With all the tankies raiding us from Zig Forums? Yes we do

This
And do one for Mao and the Kims too
And Assad

Attached: crimes of stalin.jpg (655x960, 138.28K)

Don't forget the 100 gorrilion!

No amount of cheap irony would cleanse Stalin of his crimes.

This.

lmao I'm gonna make a thread "anarchist crimes" where I complain about the raping of nuns in Catalonia, forced conscription, "sateless" labor camps and other things.
Fucking funny how anarchists pretend to be edgy moreal nihilists when it comes to their own agenda but would endlessy cry about the murder of a bunch of reactionory quasi-fascist Polish officer corps. I've had anarchists on this board defending making a selfie with your iPhone in front of a burning worker's car at G20, but would go on and on about the horrible crimes of Marxism-Leninism. Parenti has a point when he points at leftoid anti-communism which often comes with more vitriol than the one of right-wingers. I could literally go on Zig Forums and they'd have a more nuanced understanding of Stalin.

Okay let's get into this. There are many things weird about this. First off, it is so fucking convenient for Yelzin to release the supposed incriminating document at a time when the dissolution of the USSR needed some legitimization, and since the people were against it, smearing the USSR as a criminal entity was a good way to do so. Here is the question: Krushchev, who was largely unpopular as well, rested his legitimacy on the supposed "crimes" of Stalin as well - if this document existed in the deep vaults of the Kremlin, why didn't he mentioned it in his secret speech? He certainly blamed Stalin for Katyn - why didn't he back it up if he just had to go a few levels lower to get incriminating evidence?

Secondly, the story itself is whacky as fuck. You don't even need to read Furr to come to that conclusion. What we have are a bunch of dead officers with German bullets. The "official" version is that the Soviets somehow foresaw that the Germans will attack them in the future, despite they currently having a non-aggression pact with Germany and we all know that Stalin didn't believe Hitler to attack in 1941, and that there also was economic cooperation, so that they would use German bullets (where did they get them from?) because they somehow know that 10 years into the future some investigation would blame the defeated Germans for this if they discovered it. Are you fucking kidding me? That story is ridiculous, especially since the Soviets didn't really have a motive (remember that the Germans saw the Poles as semi-subhumans), and would later not execute captured German officers, which were obviously more of an archenemy.

The most ridiculous thing is that the main source for this is like so much anti-communist stuff fucking Nazi propaganda. Imagine the message of Katyn reaches the German propaganda ministerium:

Wow, an anarchist bootlicking bourgeois formalism. Anyway, peer review certainly has some problems:
business.financialpost.com/opinion/junk-science-week-you-think-peer-review-proves-anything-about-the-reliability-of-science-think-again
archive.fo/OgGnZ

Anyway, the whole thing about "Furr not being peer reviewed" is a liberal meme, because libshits literally have nothing else to throw against him.

msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/gf_marxmem2016.html
msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/budennyi_klio12.pdf
clogic.eserver.org/2010/Furr.pdf
arch.oucs.ox.ac.uk/detail/90838/index.html
platypus1917.org/platypus-review/

Looks like the whole thing is just a lie. Furr truly strikes fear into the heart of libshits

t.riggered

Attached: DeRev5SUQAA19iv.jpeg (1024x683, 138.33K)

The absolute state of tankies. The only thing going for them with Katyn is one literal-who, it's pathetic.

Attached: 1520554079974.jpg (554x1083, 135.85K)

Whatever you need to tell yourself lawcuck.

Attached: 2E27224D00000578-3305777-image-a-1_1446797773396.jpg (962x641, 185.5K)

>implying people invaded by nazis are nazis and should just be summarily executed
wow it's no wonder stalin's fan club has such an abysmal track record of crimes against humanity when you people are this belligerent and paranoid

Attached: 1350917883305.gif (400x225, 2.68M)

He does it again! Why are your neutered, dispersive acts of lifestylism any different from the violence enacted by Marxist-Leninist states? Also:
Unironically read Trotsky's work about terrorism. Violence is a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.

I don't care who is OP. Obviously people are already lying through their teeth and spouting Nazi propaganda again.

Attached: leftpol stasi.png (600x1556, 532.33K)

Here is the weird logic in this argument though: The USSR /didn't/ kill Nazi POW. So why would they kill a Polish officer corps? Seems a bit inconsequential, doesn't it? Especially considering how things were indefinitely more brutal during a genocidal war.

Also:
Wtf I love Israel now

AHAHAHAHA and people call me "lawcuck" on here. "Crimes against humanity" is a vague legalistic term, that has no mention in any criminal law code in the world, and is merely being used politically by the UN.

What capitalism does on a daily basis is a fucking crime against humanity.

That's in reference to you being a lawyer.
They aren't coordinated or aligned with a state and are happening in the present day for starters.
The burning cars posted belong to a pig and the deputy chair of the EPU, targets specfically aligned with liberalism and oppression of the proletariat is using the scapel.
If you're this triggered about taking Stalin's name in vain irl, you need to give up realpolitik.

It's more about what the Stalin apologist argued than what happened historically that I was replying to, fam.
I didn't imply that. The guy I replied to was calling the poles nazis as justification for execution. How can you be a lawyer if you're this bad at reading?
I'm using it in the sense of "war crimes" but broadened to include atrocities committed without a war. Murder is a crime (in the sense of wronging someone) regardless of what the law says.
capitalism does it so it's cool when stalin did it
the USSR was not state capitalism btw

I'm not, I study jurisprudence. I do not aim to be a basic bitch lawyer. Lenin and Marx studied law fyi.

That doesn't make them good or useful. I know anarcho types fear the materialism, but how the fuck do these random acts of vandalism (which very seldom are directed against actual system girders unlike the RAF did it) further our cause? Are you implying Marxist-Leninists are not violent when shit hits the fan? In the developing world, where there are vastly different material conditions, MLs and MLMs often form militas and arm the population - and they do so today. You havn't actually proven that individual, decentralized acts of violence actually work, vanguard parties have worked in the past, but everytime anarchists managed to come into power it was caused by a massive power vacuum, mostly through a civil war.

Which ones? By pig you mean bourgeoisie or police? What riots are you talking about specifically? I have no problem with shit if its coordinated like that, but there is no way in the world all the event tourists who you may as well meet at a German metal festival at G20 were adhering to that kind of dogma. lol

I mean, there were organized groups, but they got marginalized by the vast amount of radlibs.

I don't bring this up unless asked about, but I'm not gonna go ahead and lie about the Holodomor because muh optics. If the one you are appealing to can't even accept some historical proofs he's so injected with propaganda that it makes no sense bringing him over to your side. He's gonna betray you anyway.

ITT people suggested to pin it because of hurr tankies. Sounds like Stalin is your big other

Fam, I don't even know if it was the Soviets who did it, the offical story sounds far-fetched, but I just think it's funny how Libcoms would care so much about a bunch of Polish elitist officer corps, regardless of them being actual fascists, they surely were right-wing authoritarian nationalists.

The USSR had class character, that doesn't mean literally everything that happened was cool, but there is still a qualitative difference. Exploitation, imperialism, withholding goods, living space and access to services from people, enriching a small minority, corporate wars, colonialism, etc. didn't happen there. When was violence enacted against actual workers under Stalin?

A split hair, you are still a lawcuck. Or lawfag if that's your preferred pronoun.
Just going back to the burger labor movement, such acts of violence alongside the threat of strikes is what added power to demands behind the 8-hour workday. In a modern context, the threat of violence has been largely missing from the movement in the west, which is a major reason why protests against austerity or union busting or imperialism have delivered nothing. Given this, we must be prepared to use violence as a tool and to do this we must engage in violence to show that we are serious.
I didn't imply that, but based on actually existing ML parties in the west it's likely that such organisations will be unable to be violent when shit hits the fan in the west, where it will be more likely to have a bigger effect than in an underdeveloped country in the 3rd world. Both because they do not currently engage and organize for it and because their membership is not trained for it.
The 1st image I posted can be read about here, it happened less than a week ago: mpalothia.net/kiev-ukraine-anarchists-burned-lexus-deputy-chairman-of-the-epu-grachev/
The second one was from when anti-capitalists marched on Buckingham Palace in 2015. Pig means police, I thought this was common across the west.
This is true of most sects of the left.
You don't have to lie, but it's going to get brought up and you need a better response than Parenti-tier defense, which normies that have swum in liberalism all their life will almost certainly reject out of hand.
I didn't, frankly I don't care about Stalin one way or the other.

Just the fact that someone is justifying execution based on misidentification is a serious problem that demonstrates why summary execution is a problem.

"Joe dindu these specific bad things" isn't a justification for bad things he did do, irrespective of whether your premise is even correct here.

Yeah, so. So are Churchill, FDR, Atlee, Truman, and De Gaulle.

Made me think.

A thread for each one would be excellent bantz.

The thread is called "Stalin's Crimes" not "Marxist-Leninist crimes". Condemnation of Stalin is not the same as condemnation of Marxism-Leninism. Conversely, condemnation of the anarchists in Catalonia who killed the nuns is not condemnation of anarchist theory as a whole. If you can't understand this simple point then is there any sense in reading everything else you've written in your rage-fueled damage control post?

They were *prisoners of war*. They were removed from the battlefield and posed no threat. Wars aren't about killing people, they're about conquest and fulfillment of strategic goals.

It doesn't matter whether you have killed, imprisoned or wounded (e.g. blown off leg rendering a soldier combat ineffective) because the result is the same – an enemy loses a soldier. To execute prisoners is nothing more than blood thirst and vengeance.

Again, thread is about the crimes of Joseph Stalin, who, as far as I know, is not the embodiment of Marxism-Leninism.

archive.fo/OgGnZ
The author of this article, Ronald Bailey, has a bachelor's in philosophy.

So, neither of these two people actually have qualifications to talk about science in an academic manner. Bailey's whole argument is that scientists should be solving practical problems, and not pursuing pure science because a lot of it ends up wrong. No shit, most of science is wrong because new theories replace old ones.

No one is saying 'science' is infallible, but you seem to be saying Stalin is.

Then you go on to post more links without context. You know providing sources is not just copy/pasting links that seem like they might support what you're saying.

What are those links supposed to be?

...

Do a 360 and fuck off back where you came from.

wouldn't be particularly surprised if stalin had targeted ukraine for famine, but if he did it would have been because they were a restive province, so idk if that really constitutes genocide, in general the famines weren't as much of a failure of soviet planning as they were the inevitable consequence of rapid modernisation

There is no evidence that Holodomor was planned and orchestrated by the Soviet Union under Stalin's orders. It was a combination of drought, bad year for crops, and the Kulaks killing their own cattle.

marxism.halkcephesi.net/Ludo Martens/node77.html

mltheory.wordpress.com/2014/06/07/facts-about-the-holodomor-and-why-its-fake/

I specifically want this thread to be evidence-based, no need to resort to shit flinging, name calling and speculation. For example, the M-L in this thread is speculating how the Nazis could have framed the Soviets, but provides no evidence to support that claim.

Regarding Katyn:
marxists.org/archive/dewar/1966/katyn-massacre.htm

Marxism isn't blindly defending anyone throughout history who has called themselves socialist. Marxism is part of the social sciences, and as such operates based on evidence, arguments are formed from deduction or induction following from verifiable premises.

Attached: moscowdesign1.jpg (575x374, 85.44K)

At this point you aren't even left pol.
Some leftcoms were atleast well-read. Anarkiddies won't even be missed.

never said there was any proof (he who controls the past) just that I wouldn't be surprised if the ukraine was singled out for harsher treatment

Attached: tfwnoancomgf.jpg (1600x1066, 355.89K)

body too long, contd.

Then, watch this master argument.
I'm not even arguing the veracity of the claim 'The Soviets did not execute children', but to use it so matter-of-factly to prove a very contentious argument is laughable.

And, if you look for the article online, published in Socialism and Democracy in August 2013, you will find that it has not been cited a single time in five years. In science, the number of times the article has been cited is usually an indicator of how good an article is because it either prompts others to disagree with it and write articles in response or others cite it in their own papers to support what they're saying.
tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/08854300.2013.795268?scroll=top&needAccess=true

0 citations means it is irrelevant and not even worthy of response. Of course, this can be for many reasons, such as no interest in the topic or others vehemently disagreeing they don't want to look at it. However, if it was a good article one would expect at least Marxist or Soviet scholars to cite it, no?

I also checked Google Scholar and found that the article was cited a whopping two times! One citation is a book, called 'Princeton Radicals of the 1960s, Then and Now' by William H. Tucker. Since I don't have access to the book I cannot see the context of the citation.

The second time it is cited it is cited in the 'The Bible & Critical Theory' journal, in an article titled 'On the Question of Sin' subtitled 'Stalin and Human nature'. It was a cite note of the following quote written by Joseph Stalin (M-Ls in the thread, take note):

Attached: 1524151852687.jpg (801x1200, 213.54K)

*read the article

The absolute state of tankies

Stalin actually spent most of the Interwar period arguing that they should work with the Kulaks, only changing his mind after the Left Opposition was forced out of power.

Stalin was literally the reason that collectivisation was ever even an issue, because he was a callous peace of shit who didn't actually give a shit about communism.

Because Stalin's included the splitting of Poland between him and Hitler?

Because 2 bodies in a mass grave that are clearly identified as not killed by the USSR would have to mean the Germans randomly dug up 10,000 bodies just to kill 2 soldiers in the same area. EXCEPT forensics shows that there is evidence the most bodies were killed after the USSR was forced to retreat from the German onslaught.

Wow you'd give Usopp a run for his money in a lying contest.

I know the 1940s propaganda went "The Polish government ceased to exist after the Nazi invasion, so 16 days later the Soviet Union moved in to protect Poles from Nazi agression", but come on, the text of the molotov-ribbentrop pact is known today, they literally agreed to split Poland, and it was obvious they were partitioning the rest of of eastern Europe to annex by the nature of the "spheres of influence" agreement.

Uhhh no.

By 1938 when Nazi Germany conquered Czechoslovakia. Poland, Great Britain and France granted affidavit to Germany’s conquest via the Munich Agreement, it was clear to the USSR that preparations should be made to meet the unavoidable nazi onslaught on its own. This included gaining buffer zones and a last ditch attempt to build a military front and launch an offensive against Nazi Germany before it was too late.
The USSR tried one last time to rally Poland, Great Britain and France into a preemptive attack on Nazi Germany to liquidate the Nazi leadership and dismantle the 3rd Reich. Stalin even offered 1 million troops to achieve this. Poland would have to do nothing other than let Soviet troops go through and logistics go unhindered. Had this happened the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened and tens of millions of lives would have been spared. If one were to be as much of a simplistic hypocrite as those who attack the USSR with so much vitriol, one would be compelled to blame the deaths of the Jews and tens of millions of Europeans on Great Britain, France and the government of the 2nd Polish Republic as bearing nigh complicit status with Nazi Germany.
Since Soviet offers for a preemptive strike on Germany were rebuffed, the USSR was left with no choice but to gain time and build buffer zones. It would try to bargain with Finland and then subdue it militarily for this end, would engage in trade with Nazi Germany to further industrialise and prepare for the unavoidable war with them and would include taking territories conquered by Nazi Germany from Poland as part of the Non-Aggression Pact, a pact designed to win time and prepare.

quora.com/Can-Cass-Dean-prove-her-assertion-that-the-Soviet-Union-did-not-invade-Poland-jointly-with-Germany/answer/Cass-Dean

don't see anything in that answer that rebuts anything I said.
this is Israeli tier, and agreeing to split Poland and carve up Europe isn't exclusive with creating buffer zones. also striving for political dominance in occupied nations doesn't jive with "just being buffers"
btw, those buffer zones worked great. abandoning all of the Soviet fortifications on the polish border and exposing all of your air force to get eradicated in the first month, while the German army instantly sweeps past your buffer zones and gets to Leningrad in 5 weeks.

Fucking brilliant argument. Try to adress the answer instead of bitching out.

"this is Israeli tier"
not only is it not, (false equivalency), but it is also ignorant of historical context and makes 0 argument. I know the Moleneux meme is an ironic one, but by golly does it fit.

1) Brest Fortress and many other such fortresses you speak of lasted an entire month and held up whole divisions of the German forces.

2) The majority of the soviet airforce was caught by surprise bombing raids at 4 AM, despite this they shot down more German aircraft in the first week of the war than the British airforce did during the entire Battle of Britain. Look it up.

And took such terrible casualties that its own generals wrote in their diaries that they were likely to lose the war at this pace.

Your historical ignorance is staggering

Attached: TFS Quotables And here we go.mp4 (480x360, 89.84K)

it was surrounded in less than 5 hours, and the last defended object in the fortress was taken one week after the start of the war.
during the 5 months of operation Barbarossa, the 2,800 axis aircraft were destroyed, many belonging to countries besides Germany. during the battle of Britain, 2,000 aircraft were destroyed. So were were 71% of german aircraft shot down in the first week?
sounds like you have ONE particular general in mind. There were also generals who thought they could win the war in 1944, and generals who thought the moon was made of ice, so what value are we placing on generals

that's right.

What German communists? The communist movement in Germany was depleted before Hitler came to power.

And resistance continued for several more weeks. The Germans had to pound most of the fortress to rubble to defeat them.

Soviet Airforce combat losses over the war were 46,100 aircrafts, not 75,400-82,200 (G.F. Krivosheyev, ‘Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the twentieth century’, London, Greenhill Books, 1997)
- 20,000 aprox. in air combats
- 26,100 aprox. because of flak and other causes related in combat

Luftwaffe combat losses for the war: between
38 500 - 42 000 (Ellis, John (1993). World War II - A statistical survey. Facts on File. p. 258. ISBN 0-8160-2971-7.)

Now to detail

s the German Air Force had around 2800 aircraft deployed for Operation Barbarossa. The Germans achieved total surprised and launched an attack with about 1000 bombers against 66 airfields in the Russian border districts. The reported losses on these initial attacks vary, but the 1970s Soviet official history states the loss of 800 aircraft destroyed on the ground and a total loss of 1200 aircraft. losses grew to 3985 aircraft by the end of it, HOWEVER, as per airforce memoirs, most of the later destroyed aircraft had run out of fuel and were bombed attempting to re-fuel and arm. I admit that I mis-stated my numbers. What I meant to say was lost in translation, (google translate is weird): I meant to say this:

The Germans lost far more aircraft just 1 week into Operation Barbarossa than during the Battle of Britain

According to post-war Soviet and German records between the beginning of the operation and the end of the year 1941 ( 22nd of June 1941 and the 31st of December 1941), the losses were approximately as follows: A total of 21 200 aircraft were lost on the Soviet side. With 17 900 combat aircraft and the loss of 3300 support aircraft. (Greenwood: p. 67/ p.88) Yet, only 50 % of these losses were combat losses. The German side lost a total of 2500 (2505) combat aircraft and 1900 (1895) damaged. ( Greenwood, John T.: Soviet Frontal Aviation during the Great Patriotic War, 1941-45. In: Russian Aviation and Air Power in the Twentieth Century: p. 67)

No, but to expound fully I'd need to write a booke… oh wait: 1941 The Eyes of The Germans. Birch crosses instead of Iron by Robert Kershaw. Have a perusal if you can find it, though as far as I know its print only.

A theory that was plausible in a time of inferior technology. German generals, unlike Italian and early French generals were by and large some of the best commanders in the world, next to US and Soviet ones.

No general genuinely thought that, but you couldn't say otherwise without getting executed, ever since Stalingrad's end resulted in a Field Marshal surrendering, as well as assassination attempts, Hitler had a gun on all generals.

copy-pasting from somewhere else:

To the end of destroying the “Red threat” Nazi Germany swiftly imprisoned communists at home, vanquished them in Austria and sent tens of thousands of troops and logistical operatives and thousands upon thousands of materiel in conjunction with Fascist Italy to guarantee the destruction of the 2nd Spanish Republic and the victory of Francisco Franco’s coup. Franco wouldn’t have won in Spain had it not been for the vital support provided by Germany and Italy.
The Soviet Union was engaged in Spain on the battlefield against Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy since 1936. So much so that some are willing to claim this is the real start of WWII. The Soviet Union also sent thousands of troops, advisors and logistical operators together with planes, machineguns, and tanks to support the Republican efforts to suppress Franco’s coup. Not as well positioned as Italy and Germany the logistics of the USSR were of a much more limited capacity and eventually Soviet support could not prove decisive.
Nazi Germany and Italy had signed an agreement called “Anticomintern” which was later joined by Japan. They had vowed to oppose the Communist International and to strangle the Soviet Union into oblivion.

Resistance continued for the rest of the war in all occupied territory, the point is the fort was defeated after a week, and useless almost immediately.
So what you're saying is, instead of 2800 aircraft in 5 months, there were 2500 german aircraft in 6 months. To do the math again, this means you're claiming 80% of these losses occurred in the first week to fulfill your comparison to the battle of Britain.
no it fucking wasn't. 1930s technology was more than capable of establishing the surface of the moon was 130 degrees hot, and the originator of the "theory" openly said he devised it from dreams and visions he had of ice, not any evidence

organized red army fighting is not the same as partisan warfare. They were directly fighting the Germans in the fortresses ruins, not sabotaging food supplies to a captured fort.

"useless almost immediately." Yeah, because forcing the Germans to use a force of around 18,000 men to take a fortress of 6000 men is useless, yep. And not only that, but for the fortress - an old, war-torn and small one - to take 1 week just to enter and a month to clear out is by no means useless, it was a significant thorn in German sides. The 1 week claim is by the Germans, as per soviet documentation the fortress was finally lost on the 20th of July

ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Оборона_Брестской_крепости

translate the Russian wiki page, the English one is just false in almost every aspect, or lacking so much information it's embarrassing.

Read carefully you idiot;

". I admit that I mis-stated my numbers. What I meant to say was lost in translation, (google translate is weird): I meant to say this:
The Germans lost far more aircraft just 1 week into Operation Barbarossa than during the Battle of Britain"

Clearly I'm talking about 1st week of war losses. Also the Battle of Britain was 4 months (July until October). Operation Barbarossa was also 4 months, (June - September).

So who was it? Also 1930s technology was unreliable at best, 1930s science also claimed that eugenics had a biological basis in real life. I think we can study a human skull far more easily than the surface of the moon.

The former. Although to be fair I'm rusty. I have my cited pages for arguments on a document because I don't always have said books at hand but I know the information is in them. As I've said, I'm rusty, haven't done a historical debate in over a year and been too busy to re-read my old favorites.

what is the difference between these two statements? one makes the difference between shot down vs lost, but that was never in contention.
You're still claiming in the first week, more than 2000 aircraft were lost, which has to be false. as you said, 2,800 German aircraft were deployed for Barbarossa. on July 8th, the battle of Smolensk began, in which 1,500 German aircraft were deployed. unless at least 700 new aircraft were brought to the front in two weeks, just this one battle makes your claim impossible.

btw, you've said "Far more" and the numbers are 2,000 for the battle of britain and 2,500 for Start of Barbarossa to December 31st, which by your reckoning is more than two months after the end of Barbarossa. 20% more over a far larger theater isn't exactly Far more, even ignoring your 1 week claim.

Are you blind? "Clearly I'm talking about 1st week of war losses"

again, it was a translation mistake, sue me asshole, you try being multilingual and not having a decent translator online and having word by word translations come out wrong.

Can an anglo step in an explain this? He is still saying there were more casualties in the first week than in the battle of Britain.
Does he mean the first week of Barbarossa compared to the first week of the Battle of Britain?

yes, yes, that is exactly what I meant. I told you it was a mistake, stop harping.

I HAVE YET TO FIND ONE CRIME, ONE CRIME

Attached: I HAVE YET TO FIND ONE CRIME.png (362x362, 81.13K)

the best part about this thread is that they're still harping on this one event

The Communist Party of Germany (KPD) received nearly 5 million votes in the German presidential election of 1932 along with a peak of 100 seats in the Reichstag. It wasn't until after Hitler took power that its leaders were arrested and the party was crushed.

Attached: German election results.png (544x344 44.06 KB, 20.26K)

This is all beside the point.

The Soviet-German invasion of Poland was a shameful event. Even if the Soviets had failed in their diplomacy of containment aimed at the fascist powers it was no excuse to later support them materially via shipments of goods as well as form secret pacts to divide up Eastern Europe into spheres of influence. Again, a shameful period for the Soviet Union which revealed the sheer opportunism of the ruling clique.

The Germans wanted Poland to be defeated as quickly as possible so they wouldn't face the prospect of a two-front war against France and Great Britain while the bulk of their forces were in the East. The Soviets, for their part, wanted to ensure that Germany signed no armistice with Poland before Soviet troops could occupy their half of the country. The excuse given by the Soviets was an ex post facto justification.

Have a look at the diplomatic cables being exchanged during the invasion of Poland.

September 3, 1939
Please discuss this at once with Molotov and see if the Soviet Union does not consider it desirable for Russian forces to move at the proper time against Polish forces in the Russian sphere of interest and, for their part, to occupy this territory. In our estimation this would be not only a relief for us, but also, in the sense of the Moscow agreements, in the Soviet interest as well.
RIBBENTROP

September 4, 1939
We agree with you that at a suitable time it will be absolutely necessary for us to start concrete action. We are of the view, however, that this time has not yet come. It is possible that we are mistaken, but it seems to us that through excessive haste we might injure our cause and promote unity among our opponents.
MOLOTOV (via Schulenberg)

September 8, 1939
The Polish Army, from all indications, is more or less in a state of dissolution. Under these circumstances, I consider it urgent that you resume the conversation with Molotov regarding the military intentions of the Soviet Government. It may be that the summoning of the Russian Military Attache to Moscow indicates that decisions are in preparation there. I would therefore ask you to speak to Molotov on the subject again in an appropriate manner and to wire result.
RIBBENTROP

September 10, 1939
I explained emphatically to Molotov how crucial speedy action of the Red Army was at this juncture.

Molotov repeated that everything possible was being done to expedite matters. I got the impression that Molotov promised more yesterday than the Red Army can live up to.

Then Molotov came to the political side of the matter and stated that the Soviet Government had intended to take the occasion of the further advance of German troops to declare that Poland was falling apart and that it was necessary for the Soviet Union, in consequence, to come to the aid of the Ukrainians and the White Russians "threatened" by Germany. This argument was to make the intervention of the Soviet Union plausible to the masses and at the same time avoid giving the Soviet Union the appearance of an aggressor.

This course was blocked for the Soviet Government by a DNB report yesterday to the effect that, in accordance with a statement by Colonel General Brauchitsch, military action was no longer necessary on the German eastern border. The report created the impression that a German-Polish armistice was imminent. If, however Germany concluded an armistice, the Soviet Union could not start a "new war."
SCHULENBERG

September 14, 1939
For the political motivation of Soviet action (the collapse of Poland and protection of Russian "minorities") it was of the greatest importance not to take action until the governmental center of Poland, the city of Warsaw, had fallen. Molotov therefore asked that he be informed as nearly as possible as to when the capture of Warsaw could be counted on.
SCHULENBERG

September 15, 1939
From the communication made to you by Molotov on September 14, we assume that the Soviet Government will take a hand militarily, and that it intends to begin its operation now. We welcome this. The Soviet Government thus relieves us of the necessity of annihilating the remainder of the Polish Army by pursuing it as far as the Russian boundary. Also the question is disposed of in case a Russian intervention did not take place, of whether in the area lying to the east of the German zone of influence a political vacuum might not occur. Since we on our part have no intention of undertaking any political or administrative activities in these areas, apart from what is made necessary by military operations, without such an intervention on the part of the Soviet Government there might be the possibility of the construction of new states there.
RIBBENTROP

avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/ns072.asp

LOL

It would be if there was a Soviet-German invasion, but it wasn't. This isn't even funny anymore it's retarded.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact involved 2% of Europe. The “secret protocols” were not finalized until late September. Churchill describes the “secret protocols” with full approval in his speech on October 1. By then, Stalin had already shown them to the Baltics.
German trade with the Soviet Union:
1) Had nothing to do with the Molotov Ribbentrop pact.
2) Stalin sold almost exclusively wheat and cotton to Germany in return for high-tech war materiel, including optical instruments beyond the range of Soviet industry and heavy equipment for manufacturing ammunition. How is trading wheat for industrial materials wrong? Why would a country that had scratched, and kicked and fought its way up a CLIFF of problems and opposition (from foreigners and the asinine Tsarist economy), completely cut off relations with a country they know would be coming for them when they weren't ready, not to mention building things from scratch when there is no need to.

TL;DR don't bother re-inventing the wheel

That's a lie, in fact evidence points to the contrary, the Polish government's idiotic and cowardly decision to flee was a severe blow to the soviet plan, which was to allow the Poles to fight the Germans off if possible and use the results of the war to convince the uncaptured part of Poland to ally with it. To do this the USSR even WITHDREW its border troops from the Polish border on the eve of the German attack.

Frankly most of your answer just completely ignores the quora answer I sen written by a person who quite literally lived in that time and is well read in history. I suggest you read Cass's answer(s)

The Soviet Union was officially neutral in the Polish-German conflict, declared to all parties and the League of Nations by diplomatic letter and accepted by all parties, including Poland. That was why neither Poland, Britain or France declared war on the Soviet Union and why Poland issued orders not to fire on the Soviet Union when it crossed the Polish border after Poland was beaten. therefore your “organized resistance” (as if), was not only not considered an act of war, but went against the Polish governmental decree while they were still in power. An ex-president does not have the right to make presidential differences, thus a government that fled the country and essentially was no longer a government cannot revoke this decree.

Attached: let me break it down for you.jpg (205x140, 58.4K)

Cont.

Poland kept meddling in international affairs and the USSR positioned itself to benefit from whatever conflicts were coming to push back the upcoming and evident world war. All of which was caused by Western backing, funding and support for Hitler and his ideals.

By September 8, according to historian William Shirer, all the Poles’ divisions were broken and scattered, and most encircled, except for those caught in a pincer and being driven back to Warsaw. On September 14, the Polish command issued a General Order that any troops able to move should head for the border. Romania had agreed before the war that it would maintain its neutral status and use it to disarm and intern escaping Poles.
The remaining Poles were ordered not to fire on it in keeping with the USSR’s official status of neutrality. The Soviet troups has similar orders. They were not to engage with the Poles unless fired upon first. As a result there were very few reported armed conflicts in the entire Red Army Polish campaign.

msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/mlg09/did_ussr_invade_poland.html#The Polish State Collapsed

Attached: poland on WW 2 crimes.png (1178x1080, 744.18K)

The majority of losses by the Red Army was due to non-combat issues, ranging from friendly fire to accidents. Mostly because it was fresh troops.
history.org.ua/JournALL/journal/2007/1/10.pdf

According to documents the Soviet troops were to release all Polish troops that surrendered. However there were several cases where the released soldiers broke into the soviet-guarded armories and attacked troops. Анджей Фришке. «Польша. Судьба страны и народа 1939—1989», Варшава, изд. «Искры», 2003, стр. 25

The Germans invaded from the West, and then two weeks later the Soviets invaded from the East.
"In 1940 the Soviet Union also supplied Germany with 74 percent of its phosphates needs, 67 percent of its asbestos imports, 65 percent of its chrome ore supplies, 55 percent of its manganese, 40 percent of its nickel imports and 34 percent of its imported oil. As the Quartermaster General of the German army, Colonel Eduard Wagner, put it, 'the conclusion of this treaty has saved us.'"
Adam Tooze, The Wages of Destruction
Shut the fuck up, retard. Look at the diplomatic cables I've posted.
Why the fuck would I read some dumbass answer on Quora?

None of this shit is even relevant to the discussion you autist.

Don't come here spreading lies and expect no one to catch you.

Attached: ribbentrop-and-stalin-at-the-signing-of-the-pact.jpg (472x640, 129.48K)

They didn't invade, it did not constitute an invasion as the Polish state was no longer in existance

A year after the war was finished.
Also the quote your stating isn't from Wages of Destruction but from Stalin: Waiting for Hitler, 1929-1941 By Stephen Kotkin: books.google.com/books?id=xTA7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA769&lpg=PA769&dq=the conclusion of this treaty has saved us.'&source=bl&ots=-6iKi038aU&sig=EeauXNkkRauxGqiBIO6HQ5_xzOk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLiNbysLHbAhWNtVkKHS37BB0Q6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=the conclusion of this treaty has saved us.'&f=false

And you omit several important things.
1) the treaty of 1939 was 4x smaller
2) the supplies were not given until after the attack on France
3) it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NON-AGGRESSION PACT. The Trade treaty is a wholly different set of documents.
4) This is irrelevant to what we're talking about, The POLISH-German war of 1939.

It sure as hell is.

Yeah and there is no clear indication that "The Soviets, for their part, wanted to ensure that Germany signed no armistice with Poland before Soviet troops could occupy their half of the country."

Because that 'dumbass' knows a hell of a lot more than you and basically refutes every single one of your "points" WHILE CITING The VERY SAME AVALON SOURCES YOU DID. I know those fucking cables well, I've read them several times, you anti-soviet retard.

The pot calling the kettle black.

PS Western trade support, most of it unmarked was far higher than that of the soviets. A black market is rarely taken into account. Not to mention that raw resources is not the same as trading weapons, industrial equipment and other important infrastructure. One must refine the oil, melt-down metals, and process all these resources before making them into something. The German economic output, GDP, etc. was tiny compared to 1942 onwards. Selling someone resources is hardly enabling them, especially when the point is to defer a war one isn't ready for.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

Attached: arguments on the internet.jpg (415x291 175.98 KB, 85.77K)

Also, you want documents?
Here is the translated plans for Operation Weiss
doc20vek.ru/node/349

In those documents the German War plan mentions the 'russians' 2 times, and considered their entrance into the war as unlikely.

The Red Army not only was not 'invading' but it even resorted to subterfuge to avoid conflicts with the Poles. A lot of tanks were draped with white bed sheets on the gun barrels. They told the Poles “We’ve come to help you against the Germans.” But by this time there were not many left. The Poles were either tightly encircled or trying to fight their way out of the country at the Romanian bridgehead.

The USSR's entrance into Poland was earlier than expected (as stated by Heinz Guderian), but ocurred after the Germans had effectively won the war. In the pact all that was agreed on about Poland was that it would be divided roughly along the Curzon Line. Stalin at first favoured a rump state but with the unexpected cowardice of Polish leadership opted for returning western Belarus to Belarus and western Ukraine to Ukraine.

Even the anti-soviet Churchill (who had been encouraging the execution of Operation Pike, a joint strike on the USSR by France and the UK) stated that the enterance into Poland was not an invasion.
ww2memories.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/churchills-ww2-speech-to-the-nation-october-1939/
This is in spite of the fact that the Winter War of that same year had every western imperialist howling their throats out over at the League of Nations, despite the similar ambiguity.

I'll add more to this:
ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Нота_правительства_СССР,_врученная_польскому_послу_в_Москве_утром_17_сентября_1939_года
The Poles were sent a diplomatic request asking if they had any problems with the Red Army entering Poland - this was when the Polish state still existed and therefore had
the functions to respond with a denial - no denial came and afterwards the USSR entered.

Attached: retardation overload.gif (200x189, 741.61K)

Attached: your 'argument'.jpg (581x499, 45.54K)

When you grow up and stop living in the namby pamby fantasy you're projecting get back to me, because at this point, your absolute ignorance on foreign policy is stupidly naive.

Attached: I know its crazy but its true.jpg (500x500, 87.02K)

Because you provoked me by being even more of an idiot than usual I will be more specific than a shitty Kramer gif. Obviously I wasn't making any argument, I was trying to point out the ridiculous monumental stupidity of "there was no functioning state therefore nothing to invade". As if the all the people, institutions and ☘️property☘️ that existed there just suddenly dematerialized into the ether and eastern Poland became free, unused land for the USSR to peacefully settle in. That level of fucking stupid doesn't justify an argument.

Also, you seem to be confusing me with the other user. Since I think that you are a complete moron who shamelessly thinks he knows what he's talking about because he can spend 20 minutes Googling faster than my geriatric parents asses, I don't feel the need to argue with you like the other user did (for some insane reason). But please continue responding, it's certainly entertaining to say the least.

You already proved you were full of shit when you claimed the soviets traded "almost exclusively" wheat and cotton. Go away.

pic related. its page 321 of the book where i took the quote from.

Attached: tooze_321.png (562x424, 34.54K)

The monumental stupidity here is your absolute naivety about international relations and historical context.

Except the majority of the population there were Ukrainians, Belrussians and other ethnicity, since Poland captured that land during the war with the USSR 10 years prior.
The majority of large farmholdings were collectivized but as I said before the Poles were not imprisoned for the most part. The 20,000 or so officers that WERE imprisoned were interned as per international law, dictating that all military personel of 2 warring countries must be interred by the country they are fleeing into. Romania did the same with much of the Polish Government.

Thanks for proving me right by giving me the cliche "you probably googled it" argument. Seriously is there ANY difference between you and Zig Forumsaks?

Attached: I know you're an idiot.jpg (1400x1274, 188.05K)

Right, this coming from a guy who legitimately thinks that the soviets "invaded" at all.

So 2 books cite nearly the same sentence… HMMMMMM!!!

Also you haven't debunked a word I said, but please do continue being retarded.

Attached: Joseph Goebbels award.jpg (1132x890, 574.39K)