The pact-sighted political move. In contrast to the silly European politicians, who gave Hitler the opportunity to join Austria, and took part in the destruction of Czechoslovakia and joined with him in the unions. Better to let the ashes sprinkled on his head is not of this pact,but the pact of four, Pact Pilsudski - Hitler etc.
Interestingly, the last vid I watched showed Ribbentrops plane taking off, this one shows it landed. Right now I'm looking for vids of Ribbentrop and so far I've noticed that there are a few vids of him in the 1930's and early 1940's, but there appear to be almost none of him after about 1942 until his trial for war crimes. I wonder what he did during the war when the Third Reich was being defeated?
Давайте лучше обсудим Мюнхенский сговор, подтолкнувший немецких нацистов на начало 2 мировой войны! СССР был вынужден заключить пакт Молотова -Рибентропа, потому что вся остальная Европа дожидалась и потирала ручки в предвкушении нападения Гитлера на СССР, спасибо скажите уёбки что спасли вас, а то бы уже половина из вас рабами были, а вторая половина на свет не появилась-всего лишь!!!
Read Cherchilja: the Second World War, the book the first
There all truth
As the USSR many times offered England and France the union against Hitler, but all time was refused And when almost all Europe has been handed over Hitler, for example, the Munich arrangement or Hitler Pulsidsky's Pact then, alone not to be at war with Hitler the pact has been concluded
This is the most cynical political agreement in the history of man kind!!
It just prooves how the Soviet Union was rotten inside, and all it cared about is territories, control, occupation and power and now ideals, when it signed an agreement with Nazi Germany to divide Poland and Eastern Europe
Some would say the "allied" Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam conferences dividing the post WW2 Europe was a strong contender to that tittle. Anyhow the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact was more abaut a delayed war agreement than sheer land grabbing, both sides signed the pact mainly to buy time for the inevitable war between them that neither side was ready for. Extra territory between the perceived enemy was a bonus.
@knutgordon - no, not true. All historians agree that the Ribbentrop-Molotov pack only rushed the beginning of WW2 because it gave a "green light" to Hitler to open war without worrying that USSR will attack Germany. The agreement promised the full cooperation of the Soviet Union with Germany, and Russia stayed indeed loyal to Nazi Germany until 1941. The pack that was signed in August 23 rushed the war, and only ONE WEEK later - Sep. 1 -Germany started its attack on Poland and opened WW2.
That it is correct, but it was nevertheless peace between Germany and Soviet Union a couple of years after. In 1941 the red army were caught off guard. Although both sides prepared for the war, It seems that Stalin had full confidence that Hitler wouldn't bee as bold (or dumb, however one see it) to launch an attack at that point in time.
@ofri75 а почему ты не вспоминаешь Мюнхенский договор? А почему ты не вспоминаешь аншлюс Австрии? Ведь это было гораздо раньше догорова Молотова-Рибентропа!!! А почему ты не вспоминаешь переговоры между СССР и ПольшеЙ, а почему ты не вспоминаешь переговоры между СССР и Франциеей или Англией??? Всё что ты тут базаришь, это обыкновеное развешивание лапши для лопухов!
@knutgordon: I can't see how there is any validity in your analysis. It was far more useful to Stalin to have sovereign nation serving as buffer b/t him Hitler. If Stalin wasn't an utterly paranoid psychotic, he'd have coldly allowed allowed the Germans to attack Poland & to have aided the Polish resistance to Hitler. This would have weakened both Poland & Germany & made Poland beholden to Stalin. Also the Western powers would have thus had time to mount a counterattack on Hitler.
Would that also include Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania also? The Soviets seized a generous portion of Eastern Europe only days before France’s and the better part of Britain’s military was crushed. That some waist border with Soviet Union anno1940 and rather well suited for the Germans to line up their war machine for an attack. Military insignificant local civilian resistance or not.
The pact was very tactical, logical, temporary marriage of convenience. Cynical and of dubious morality as the pact was, it made pretty good sense at the time from the signatories respective point of view.
@knutgordon: It was an insane murderous pact by bloody psychopaths. It was the prime cause for bringing on the greatest slaughter in human history. If Hitler had been kept from invading Poland, or had been obliged to pay a terrible price for doing so, his regime would have ended years earlier. Only the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact could exceed the Munich Accord as an act of suicidal treachery.
@VictorLepanto LMAO. Poland had a pact with Germany since 1934 and invaded Czechoslovakia together with the Nazis and Hungarians in 1938. Which the Soviet Union btw wanted to prevent by joint action with Western states but they let Hitler go ahead.
But you didn't know that because you're a stupid herd animal who just repeats what everyone else is saying.... lol.
@ElenaXVI"" Poland had a pact with Germany since 1934 and invaded Czechoslovakia together with the Nazis in 1938"""WHILE it is a fact that the aforementioned "pact" did exist, this was a "NON-Agression Pact," you are in error stating that it facilitated any mutual agression against a 3rd party e.g. "ribbentrop-molotov" which secretly stipulated the partition of the entire Polish state.The Polish state re-acquired it's territory in 1938 which was stolen through lies by Benes at Spa.
@CountGrishnaak And Russia got back the territory which it lost in WW1. Also, Poles were a minority in Eastern Poland, most inhabitants were Belarusians and Ukrainians. Solved.
@ElenaXVI""And Russia got back the territory which it lost in WW1""The "territories" you refer to were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth until the criminally instigated partitions(18th cent). These lands were stolen from the Commonwealth by a 3-way partnership of subterfuge primarily by the prussian king & "prussian" tsarina. There were no "states" named Belarus or Ukraine until the 20th cent.
@CountGrishnaak LMAO. So it's not OK for Russia to take back territories that belonged to it 2 decades ago because they once belonged to a state that ceased to exist in the 18th century? Nice one. Maybe you should accuse France of occupying territories that once belonged to the Roman Empire. lol.
@ElenaXVI""So it's not OK for Russia to take back territories"""If you're referring to "czarist russia", that state ceased to exist per civil revolution(s) thereby negating any de-jure claims to "territories/borders" acquired even in the 18th cent.So how can this "new state"(bolshevik) legally lay claim to a "czarist empire", when it's not supposed to be an "imperialist monolith by nature?. As for 1939,(we will not regurgitate) the secret clause negotiated by ribbentrop-molotov speaks for itself
@ElenaXVI: You're an apologist for Stalin & I'm a stupid herd animal? Classic projection mentality. As for any "pacts" b/t Poland & Germany. I rather suspect, since your own source for understanding seems to be propaganda, you have no idea what a "non-aggression pact" ACTUALLY is. It is simply an agreement not to make war on each other. Calling the alliance b/t Germany & Russia a non-aggression pact was propaganda. It was actually a mutual aggression pact. Do you need me to school you further?
@VictorLepanto No, actually it was a non-aggression pact for 10 years. And Poland did the same thing before that - make a pact with Hitler and occupy a country, yet I don't see you make a fuss about that. Probably because nobody else does.
@ElenaXVI: Your mind is full of propaganda & not facts. That is why it can not understand logic. You have demonstrated that you in fact have no idea what a "non-aggressiion pact" actually is. As it's name implies, it is an agreement not to commit an act of aggression on each other. It is not an aggreement to commit aggression against a 3rd party. That is called a criminal comspiracy.
As for Poland claiming a piece of Czechoslovakia after the Munich betrayal, she should have claimedd more.
@VictorLepanto LMAO. I'm not sure whether you're really so stupid or you just don't want to lose to a girl who's 25 years younger than you. Are you really 45? It's hard to believe you are...
Anyhow, a non-aggression pact is exactly what the name says: an agreement not to attack each other for a certain period of time. Many countries had one with Nazi Germany and/or the Soviet Union. If you can't deal with that, well... have a nice day ;)
@ElenaXVI: You really are thick aren't you? It WASN'T a "non-aggression pact," that is an Orwellian inversion type of propaganda. It was an AGGRESSION pact against Poland! It's purpose was devide this country which was no threat to either country but which each country hoped to exploit in its own imperial ambitions. Like the old Prussian & Czarist empires had done b/f. Stalin also hoped to add Finland, Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania to his empire.
@VictorLepanto LMAO, the decision to divide up Europe was separate from the pact. As for Finland, Stalin wanted a landbridge and two naval bases to protect Leningrad against the Germans in case of war. He asked Finland for that and offered a large chunk of Soviet territory in return. Finland refused, that's why he took it by force. In the end Leningrad was saved through that piece of land, and by that Russia and by that the world and by that YOUR stupid fat American Walmart-shopping ass ;)
@ElenaXVI ..reading toilet paper is a wonderful activity for looking at the past just gone, whereas reading tealeaves may be looking into the future. Either way, I''m not interested.
I'll look into your reference material.
I have read many many books, and many of them refer to the lies that uSSr propogated in its cause to push communism as the great saviour / liberator of the world.
And it died ... it was rotten from the inside from the beginning; until it could not be hidden any more.
@ElenaXVI ... ah, the attempted land 'swap'... the soviets wanted another naval base in Finland vs 8000 sq kilometres of wasteland ... as some one put it "2 pounds of gold for 2 pounds of dirt"
@ElenaXVI ...wrong , there is plenty to accuse about ... sovietism is dead, but the flow-on affects are not; very many nations are still trying to get over / through the decades of of soviet invasion
@40bcoots If you can't defend history, you also can't accuse it. Simple as that. Though I realize you're out for something quite different than logic here.
@40bcoots What the hell do you want from me anyway? I'm a 22 year old female, you're a 41 year old male and you try to pwn me. Where are your European knightly manners? You come over to me, make an ass of yourself by acting smug because I know something that you don't, then do a quick background check and come back to pwn me again. What do you want me to say? That us Russians are Asiatic baby rapin' monsters and other nations are peaceful blue eyed children? Well... it's true. Happy now?
@ElenaXVI ... do you really think I'm going to give Youtube my age? .. shame on your naiviety! ... pwn? = own? ?? I don't dislike ruSSians per se ... I just despise communists & nazis .
@VictorLepanto As for your words that I'm apologizing for Stalin - yes I actually am, you seem to think there is something incriminating in those words. People like you seem to think that since Stalin was a harsh ruler you can say anything you want about him and it will be true. Hint: no it's not.
@ElenaXVI: Stalin was a psychopathic mass murdering ruler. That goes beyond being "harsh." What a sick, demented equivocal term. What is wrong w/ your brain? Stalin murdered around some 20 million of his own people, that is apart from those who died in the war he did so much to bring on & so grossly mismanaged. I am talking about the dead from GULAG etc. He also allowed Hitler to begin WWII in invading Poland, where most of the world's Jews lived. Stalin also brought Mao to power in China.
@VictorLepanto Stalinism was about modernization. Every country modernized through coercion and violence, if you count that backward Russia had to make up 200 years of development in 10 years and the people were traumatized by a civil war and occupation by 14 other nations and knew there was a huge war to come, you can understand why they were so desperate to push it through. Most people were better off with Stalinism than before it anyway.
Major anachronism!!!! The Hymn of the Soviet Union became the national anthem only in 1944. At the time of the signing of the pact the Internationale served as the natiomal anthem.
@bjr43: He didn't think he could trust Hitler. His commanders told him that Hitler's rearmament needs couldn't be completed until 5yrs. after he actually did attack. This was actually the truth as Hitler's own people thought they weren't ready. Hitler attacked when he did b/c he was sick w/ Parkinson's disease & he knew he'd be too sick in 1944 to start a war. If Stalin had not decimated his own officer corps, he'd have smashed Hitler.
The pact-sighted political move. In contrast to the silly European politicians, who gave Hitler the opportunity to join Austria, and took part in the destruction of Czechoslovakia and joined with him in the unions. Better to let the ashes sprinkled on his head is not of this pact,but the pact of four, Pact Pilsudski - Hitler etc.
0Russia0 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Winston Churchill. The Second World War. The book the first
If, for example, on receipt of the Russian offer Chamberlain has answered:
"Well. Let's unite three together and we will break to Hitler a neck"..... That the history could go on other way
sss7773 4 months ago
Interestingly, the last vid I watched showed Ribbentrops plane taking off, this one shows it landed. Right now I'm looking for vids of Ribbentrop and so far I've noticed that there are a few vids of him in the 1930's and early 1940's, but there appear to be almost none of him after about 1942 until his trial for war crimes. I wonder what he did during the war when the Third Reich was being defeated?
clintonearlwalker 5 months ago
Давайте лучше обсудим Мюнхенский сговор, подтолкнувший немецких нацистов на начало 2 мировой войны! СССР был вынужден заключить пакт Молотова -Рибентропа, потому что вся остальная Европа дожидалась и потирала ручки в предвкушении нападения Гитлера на СССР, спасибо скажите уёбки что спасли вас, а то бы уже половина из вас рабами были, а вторая половина на свет не появилась-всего лишь!!!
chihpichg 6 months ago
Read Cherchilja: the Second World War, the book the first
There all truth
As the USSR many times offered England and France the union against Hitler, but all time was refused And when almost all Europe has been handed over Hitler, for example, the Munich arrangement or Hitler Pulsidsky's Pact then, alone not to be at war with Hitler the pact has been concluded
sss7773 6 months ago
пля, собрались какие то уёбки в евжопии и теперь собираются великую Россию судить!!!))) бу-га-га да клали мы с прибором на всю эту евжопию!
chihpichg 6 months ago
This is the most cynical political agreement in the history of man kind!!
It just prooves how the Soviet Union was rotten inside, and all it cared about is territories, control, occupation and power and now ideals, when it signed an agreement with Nazi Germany to divide Poland and Eastern Europe
ofri75 8 months ago
@ofri75
Some would say the "allied" Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam conferences dividing the post WW2 Europe was a strong contender to that tittle. Anyhow the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact was more abaut a delayed war agreement than sheer land grabbing, both sides signed the pact mainly to buy time for the inevitable war between them that neither side was ready for. Extra territory between the perceived enemy was a bonus.
knutgordon 6 months ago
@knutgordon - no, not true. All historians agree that the Ribbentrop-Molotov pack only rushed the beginning of WW2 because it gave a "green light" to Hitler to open war without worrying that USSR will attack Germany. The agreement promised the full cooperation of the Soviet Union with Germany, and Russia stayed indeed loyal to Nazi Germany until 1941. The pack that was signed in August 23 rushed the war, and only ONE WEEK later - Sep. 1 -Germany started its attack on Poland and opened WW2.
ofri75 6 months ago
@ofri75
That it is correct, but it was nevertheless peace between Germany and Soviet Union a couple of years after. In 1941 the red army were caught off guard. Although both sides prepared for the war, It seems that Stalin had full confidence that Hitler wouldn't bee as bold (or dumb, however one see it) to launch an attack at that point in time.
knutgordon 6 months ago
@ofri75 а почему ты не вспоминаешь Мюнхенский договор? А почему ты не вспоминаешь аншлюс Австрии? Ведь это было гораздо раньше догорова Молотова-Рибентропа!!! А почему ты не вспоминаешь переговоры между СССР и ПольшеЙ, а почему ты не вспоминаешь переговоры между СССР и Франциеей или Англией??? Всё что ты тут базаришь, это обыкновеное развешивание лапши для лопухов!
chihpichg 6 months ago
@chihpichg - My Russian friend - I cannot read Russian... sorry :)
ofri75 6 months ago
@knutgordon: I can't see how there is any validity in your analysis. It was far more useful to Stalin to have sovereign nation serving as buffer b/t him Hitler. If Stalin wasn't an utterly paranoid psychotic, he'd have coldly allowed allowed the Germans to attack Poland & to have aided the Polish resistance to Hitler. This would have weakened both Poland & Germany & made Poland beholden to Stalin. Also the Western powers would have thus had time to mount a counterattack on Hitler.
VictorLepanto 6 months ago
@VictorLepanto
Would that also include Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania also? The Soviets seized a generous portion of Eastern Europe only days before France’s and the better part of Britain’s military was crushed. That some waist border with Soviet Union anno1940 and rather well suited for the Germans to line up their war machine for an attack. Military insignificant local civilian resistance or not.
knutgordon 6 months ago
@knutgordon: I couldbn't follow an actual thought in that post.
VictorLepanto 6 months ago
@VictorLepanto
It should be quite simple to follow.
The pact was very tactical, logical, temporary marriage of convenience. Cynical and of dubious morality as the pact was, it made pretty good sense at the time from the signatories respective point of view.
knutgordon 6 months ago
@knutgordon: It was an insane murderous pact by bloody psychopaths. It was the prime cause for bringing on the greatest slaughter in human history. If Hitler had been kept from invading Poland, or had been obliged to pay a terrible price for doing so, his regime would have ended years earlier. Only the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact could exceed the Munich Accord as an act of suicidal treachery.
VictorLepanto 6 months ago
@VictorLepanto LMAO. Poland had a pact with Germany since 1934 and invaded Czechoslovakia together with the Nazis and Hungarians in 1938. Which the Soviet Union btw wanted to prevent by joint action with Western states but they let Hitler go ahead.
But you didn't know that because you're a stupid herd animal who just repeats what everyone else is saying.... lol.
ElenaXVI 4 months ago
@ElenaXVI"" Poland had a pact with Germany since 1934 and invaded Czechoslovakia together with the Nazis in 1938"""WHILE it is a fact that the aforementioned "pact" did exist, this was a "NON-Agression Pact," you are in error stating that it facilitated any mutual agression against a 3rd party e.g. "ribbentrop-molotov" which secretly stipulated the partition of the entire Polish state.The Polish state re-acquired it's territory in 1938 which was stolen through lies by Benes at Spa.
CountGrishnaak 4 months ago
@CountGrishnaak And Russia got back the territory which it lost in WW1. Also, Poles were a minority in Eastern Poland, most inhabitants were Belarusians and Ukrainians. Solved.
ElenaXVI 4 months ago
@ElenaXVI""And Russia got back the territory which it lost in WW1""The "territories" you refer to were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth until the criminally instigated partitions(18th cent). These lands were stolen from the Commonwealth by a 3-way partnership of subterfuge primarily by the prussian king & "prussian" tsarina. There were no "states" named Belarus or Ukraine until the 20th cent.
CountGrishnaak 4 months ago
@CountGrishnaak LMAO. So it's not OK for Russia to take back territories that belonged to it 2 decades ago because they once belonged to a state that ceased to exist in the 18th century? Nice one. Maybe you should accuse France of occupying territories that once belonged to the Roman Empire. lol.
ElenaXVI 4 months ago
@ElenaXVI""So it's not OK for Russia to take back territories"""If you're referring to "czarist russia", that state ceased to exist per civil revolution(s) thereby negating any de-jure claims to "territories/borders" acquired even in the 18th cent.So how can this "new state"(bolshevik) legally lay claim to a "czarist empire", when it's not supposed to be an "imperialist monolith by nature?. As for 1939,(we will not regurgitate) the secret clause negotiated by ribbentrop-molotov speaks for itself
CountGrishnaak 4 months ago
@ElenaXVI: You're an apologist for Stalin & I'm a stupid herd animal? Classic projection mentality. As for any "pacts" b/t Poland & Germany. I rather suspect, since your own source for understanding seems to be propaganda, you have no idea what a "non-aggression pact" ACTUALLY is. It is simply an agreement not to make war on each other. Calling the alliance b/t Germany & Russia a non-aggression pact was propaganda. It was actually a mutual aggression pact. Do you need me to school you further?
VictorLepanto 4 months ago
@VictorLepanto No, actually it was a non-aggression pact for 10 years. And Poland did the same thing before that - make a pact with Hitler and occupy a country, yet I don't see you make a fuss about that. Probably because nobody else does.
ElenaXVI 4 months ago
@ElenaXVI: Your mind is full of propaganda & not facts. That is why it can not understand logic. You have demonstrated that you in fact have no idea what a "non-aggressiion pact" actually is. As it's name implies, it is an agreement not to commit an act of aggression on each other. It is not an aggreement to commit aggression against a 3rd party. That is called a criminal comspiracy.
As for Poland claiming a piece of Czechoslovakia after the Munich betrayal, she should have claimedd more.
VictorLepanto 4 months ago
@VictorLepanto LMAO. I'm not sure whether you're really so stupid or you just don't want to lose to a girl who's 25 years younger than you. Are you really 45? It's hard to believe you are...
Anyhow, a non-aggression pact is exactly what the name says: an agreement not to attack each other for a certain period of time. Many countries had one with Nazi Germany and/or the Soviet Union. If you can't deal with that, well... have a nice day ;)
ElenaXVI 4 months ago
@ElenaXVI: You really are thick aren't you? It WASN'T a "non-aggression pact," that is an Orwellian inversion type of propaganda. It was an AGGRESSION pact against Poland! It's purpose was devide this country which was no threat to either country but which each country hoped to exploit in its own imperial ambitions. Like the old Prussian & Czarist empires had done b/f. Stalin also hoped to add Finland, Estonia, Latvia & Lithuania to his empire.
VictorLepanto 4 months ago
@VictorLepanto LMAO, the decision to divide up Europe was separate from the pact. As for Finland, Stalin wanted a landbridge and two naval bases to protect Leningrad against the Germans in case of war. He asked Finland for that and offered a large chunk of Soviet territory in return. Finland refused, that's why he took it by force. In the end Leningrad was saved through that piece of land, and by that Russia and by that the world and by that YOUR stupid fat American Walmart-shopping ass ;)
ElenaXVI 4 months ago
@ElenaXVI ... in all my decades of reading, I have never read that uSSr, stalin, whatever, had ever offered Finland any ruSSian territory.
What is your source / reference for this statement?
40bcoots 1 week ago
@40bcoots Guess you should read more than your toilet paper after using it. Start with Richard Overy's "Russia's War".
ElenaXVI 1 week ago
@ElenaXVI ..reading toilet paper is a wonderful activity for looking at the past just gone, whereas reading tealeaves may be looking into the future. Either way, I''m not interested.
I'll look into your reference material.
I have read many many books, and many of them refer to the lies that uSSr propogated in its cause to push communism as the great saviour / liberator of the world.
And it died ... it was rotten from the inside from the beginning; until it could not be hidden any more.
40bcoots 1 week ago
@40bcoots I'm very happy for you :)
ElenaXVI 1 week ago
@40bcoots It's the 1999 edition by Penguin Books btw.
ElenaXVI 1 week ago
@ElenaXVI ... ah, the attempted land 'swap'... the soviets wanted another naval base in Finland vs 8000 sq kilometres of wasteland ... as some one put it "2 pounds of gold for 2 pounds of dirt"
40bcoots 1 week ago
@40bcoots In that case, all of Finland is just a piece of dirt :)
ElenaXVI 1 week ago
@ElenaXVI ... isn't the whole planet we live on is just a piece of dirt... some parts better than others?
40bcoots 1 week ago
@40bcoots You're really anxious to make a point, aren't you?
ElenaXVI 1 week ago
@ElenaXVI ... with your rantings that go back several months. it appears that you are trying to make a point...
What is your point, apart from trying to defend sovietism?
40bcoots 1 week ago
@40bcoots I was defending sovietism, of course.
ElenaXVI 1 week ago
Comment removed
40bcoots 1 week ago
@ElenaXVI ... nothing to defend anymore ... at long last it has gone ... it rotted from the inside.
40bcoots 1 week ago
@40bcoots If there's nothing to defend, there's also nothing to accuse. Exactly the thing you're doing right now.
ElenaXVI 1 week ago
@ElenaXVI ...wrong , there is plenty to accuse about ... sovietism is dead, but the flow-on affects are not; very many nations are still trying to get over / through the decades of of soviet invasion
40bcoots 1 week ago
@40bcoots Logic is not your strongest talent, is it?
ElenaXVI 1 week ago
@ElenaXVI ..are you saying that soveitism is alive and well?
40bcoots 1 week ago
@40bcoots If you can't defend history, you also can't accuse it. Simple as that. Though I realize you're out for something quite different than logic here.
ElenaXVI 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ElenaXVI are you saying that soveitism is alive and well?
40bcoots 1 week ago
@ElenaXVI .. I certainly can't defend the soviet version of history.
40bcoots 1 week ago
@ElenaXVI ... good to see that you got out of the kitchen,
40bcoots 1 week ago
@40bcoots What the hell do you want from me anyway? I'm a 22 year old female, you're a 41 year old male and you try to pwn me. Where are your European knightly manners? You come over to me, make an ass of yourself by acting smug because I know something that you don't, then do a quick background check and come back to pwn me again. What do you want me to say? That us Russians are Asiatic baby rapin' monsters and other nations are peaceful blue eyed children? Well... it's true. Happy now?
ElenaXVI 1 week ago
@ElenaXVI ... do you really think I'm going to give Youtube my age? .. shame on your naiviety! ... pwn? = own? ?? I don't dislike ruSSians per se ... I just despise communists & nazis .
40bcoots 1 week ago
@VictorLepanto As for your words that I'm apologizing for Stalin - yes I actually am, you seem to think there is something incriminating in those words. People like you seem to think that since Stalin was a harsh ruler you can say anything you want about him and it will be true. Hint: no it's not.
ElenaXVI 4 months ago
@ElenaXVI: Stalin was a psychopathic mass murdering ruler. That goes beyond being "harsh." What a sick, demented equivocal term. What is wrong w/ your brain? Stalin murdered around some 20 million of his own people, that is apart from those who died in the war he did so much to bring on & so grossly mismanaged. I am talking about the dead from GULAG etc. He also allowed Hitler to begin WWII in invading Poland, where most of the world's Jews lived. Stalin also brought Mao to power in China.
VictorLepanto 4 months ago
@VictorLepanto Stalinism was about modernization. Every country modernized through coercion and violence, if you count that backward Russia had to make up 200 years of development in 10 years and the people were traumatized by a civil war and occupation by 14 other nations and knew there was a huge war to come, you can understand why they were so desperate to push it through. Most people were better off with Stalinism than before it anyway.
ElenaXVI 1 week ago
Major anachronism!!!! The Hymn of the Soviet Union became the national anthem only in 1944. At the time of the signing of the pact the Internationale served as the natiomal anthem.
xlrv1 9 months ago
Fuck you rusky-german pact, shame on you Ribbentrop-Molotoff pact ! Ion Antonescu
vincereee 1 year ago
I've gotta ask, why did Stalin think he could trust Hitler at all?
bjr43 1 year ago
@bjr43
He didn't but for the time being he would be able to gain territory - Poland, the Baltic states and Finland.
Number7smokesForEver 1 year ago
@Number7smokesForEver dont u mean territory free from Russian rule for less than 20 years?
MrMajorronin 9 months ago
@bjr43
He didn´t. In the end he only bought time to build up the Red army for war to be fought against Germany in near future.
Paska10 1 year ago
@bjr43 same reason we thought west thought she could trust stalin
meronmotors 9 months ago
@bjr43: He didn't think he could trust Hitler. His commanders told him that Hitler's rearmament needs couldn't be completed until 5yrs. after he actually did attack. This was actually the truth as Hitler's own people thought they weren't ready. Hitler attacked when he did b/c he was sick w/ Parkinson's disease & he knew he'd be too sick in 1944 to start a war. If Stalin had not decimated his own officer corps, he'd have smashed Hitler.
VictorLepanto 8 months ago
@VictorLepanto А Жуков остался) именно он и разгромил Гитлера! А не какие то жалкие англо-саксы!
chihpichg 6 months ago