TrueScotsman
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“The Government of the German Reich and the Government of the U.S.S.R. determine as the boundary of their respective national interests in the territory of the former Polish state”
Yes, the protocol was to come into effect if Germany defeated Poland militarily. That’s just what happened. The USSR entered Polish territory (former Soviet territory stolen by Poland in 1921), upon the ignominious flight of the Polish government into internment in Rumania. There was no Soviet invasion.
“in the areas east of this line by the Government of the U.S.S.R.”
Had the cowardly Polish government fled to this area they could have reestablished operations under Soviet protection. Instead the craven politicians fled into voluntary internment in Rumania. Earning themselves the inglorious honour of being the most cowardly government of WW2.
“Further it is declared that the economic agreements now in force between Germany and Lithuania shall not be affected by the measures of the Soviet Union referred to above”
The Baltics were all in with the Germans anyway.
“After the Russian Revolution in 1917, Germany conceived the geopolitical strategy of Mitteleuropa, a regional network of puppet states that would serve as a buffer zone.”
“I dunno, I think that means the secret protocol must have actually been a secret.”
Well, it wasn’t secret so…
“I think a government fleeing into exile does not extinguish the existence of a country”
It wouldn’t ordinarily but the cowardly Poles fled into a neutral country. They were therefore arrested. The state no longer existed. That’s international law. Don’t like it? Tough potatoes.
“in anyplace other than the most convoluted of apologetics”
That’s the way the world works.
” The Sovs imposed a government on a people by hostile means and carved up a hegemonic interested, irrespective of the wishes or preferences of the people in those lands. Some might call that imperialism.”
Nope, the Soviets prevented the entire country of Poland falling into Nazi hands. Would that outcome have been preferable to you? I’m sure you then would have blamed Stalin for not at least moving up to the Vistuala river and saving the poor, stupid Poles from themselves. But then, you people are hypocritical reactionaries. So, I’d expect nothing less of you.
“providing for a division on territorial spheres of influence”
A “sphere on of influence” not “partition”.
Churchill mentions the arrangement in his October 1, 1939 speech saying…
“When Herr von Ribbentropp was summoned to Moscow last week it was to learn the fact, and to accept the fact, that the Nazi designs upon the Baltic States and upon the Ukraine must come to a dead stop.”
This a direct reference to the spheres of influence that the USSR and Germany had agreed upon. So, it was hardly a secret.
The sphere of influence meant Germany could not enter that territory without coming into military conflict with the USSR. Stalin inserted the provision into the pact so that the Polish government could seek refuge under Soviet protection and reestablish operations. The Polish government, cowardly traitors that they were, fled into internment in Rumania instead. The Polish government was the only government to flee into voluntary internment throughout the entire war. By doing so they ensured the country of Poland ceased to exist.
“Stalin was a gangster, he played a gangster’s game.”
BS. He, and the heroic Soviet Union are the only reason you probably even exist right now.
“I think the crucial point is, did they jointly invade and the answer is no.”
The Soviets never invaded Poland.
“On 5 September 1939 the German Ambassador Friedrich Werner von der Schulenburg asked about the deployment of the Red Army into Poland, Molotov answered that the Soviet government “will definitely have to…start specific actions” at the right time. “But we believe that this moment has not yet come” and “any haste may ruin things and facilitate the rallying of opponents”.
Indeed, stringing the Germans along whilst having no intention of invading Poland. Which mind you, the Soviets had every right to do, given that the Poles had sought to enter the Axis alliance.
“Negotiations for Poland to join the Axis broke down over the status of Gdansk/Danzig, a Prussian city that had just elected a National Socialist government. Danzig had been severed from Germany by the Versailles Treaty in hopes that it would weaken Prussia, seen by most of Europe as the core of German militarism.”
Moreover, the “Polish” territory that the Soviets occupied had been stolen from them in 1921.
“On the 17th the war against Germany was still ongoing and far from over. But now facing two invading armies, the Poles eventually surrendered on the 6th Oct.”
False. The Soviets didn’t occupy former Polish territory (stolen from the USSR in 1921) until after the cowardly Polish government interned themselves in Rumania. Armies are only legitimate in service of a state. There was no longer a Polish state. The cowards in the interned government failed to inform segments of their former army of their perfidy. These troops now had no legal standing and were effectively an armed mob.
The League of Nations, bound to act against aggression took no action against the USSR because they did not consider them to have invaded anybody. And Britain did not declare war against the Soviet Union as was its obligation had they thought the Soviets had invaded.
“In that period, did the German and Soviet armies cooperate in the field? Yes.”
What does “cooperate” mean? Joint military operations against the Polish army? If so, completely false.
“On the 28th of September, the German–Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty was signed and confirmed the secret protocol of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact which I have mentioned previously.”
The so-called “Secret Protocol” was no such thing. Churchill refers to the “protocol” two weeks after its signing in his “mystery wrapped in an enigma” speech. Stalin also shared knowledge of the agreement with the leaders of the Baltic states.
“When Germany invaded in 1941, Polish-Soviet relations were re-established until the Katyn Massacre was uncovered.”
The Katyn black propaganda operation originates with Goebbels. The Nazis had just lost in Stalingrad. Three months later, in an effort to divide the allies, the Nazis suddenly “discover” mass graves in the surrounds of Katyn. All the corpses killed with German ammunition no less. If you believe Goebbels then your brain is broken.
“Since we question the scholarship of Furr,”
You are not qualified to question Grover Furr’s scholarship.
“TS chose to defer to the authority of a Quora contributor, an even less authoritative source.”
The Quora contributor simply references the actual Nazi documents proving there was no joint “invasion” of Poland. They are unquestionably authentic and you can read them all for yourself online.
“I tried to read Furr on Trotsky and got over half way through it. Much of the start of his work concentrates upon what defines as evidence. Since he has no smoking gun to say Trotsky and others were operating with the German and Japanese intelligence departments to actually engage in criminal acts such as murder and sabotage he relies upon interpretation and inferences.”
That’s what historians do don’t you know?
“We have the example of the Treaty of Rapallo in 1923 as another example of duplicitous diplomacy between enemies.”
I fail to see what point is being made here.
“However there is no mention of:
German–Soviet Commercial Agreement”A trade agreement is NOT an alliance. The USSR was forced to trade with the Nazis because they were sanctioned by “the allies” (Britain and The US). In return for supplies sent to Germany the Soviets received advanced weapons technology from the Nazis.
“It is also well established that Stailn had given Molotov the green light to being negotiations to start full negotiations for the USSR to become the fourth member of the Axis”
Bullshit.
It’s not about sides. It’s about evidence. The evidence is overwhelming, the USSR did not invade Poland.
“That is not new for me I had already read it a long time ago he is not a reliable and independent source I can publish a Trotskyist versión proving that the Soviet invaded Poland”
Well, “your” version would be wrong then. The facts are the facts. But if you’re unhappy with Grover Furr as a source, here’s Cass Dean…
“Can Cass Dean prove that the Soviet Union did not invade Poland jointly with the Third Reich?
YES I CAN!
When the Allies entered Berlin and seized the Foreign Office, they found the staff had fled without doing any burning. Tons of original documents were seized. Ultimately they were distributed to major universities. The Yale University archives received, among other things, the reports from Count Friedrich Werner von Schulenberg, Reich Ambassador to the Soviet Union, to the German Foreign Office, headed by Joachim von Ribbentrop. Chain of command ran from Stalin to Molotov to Schulenberg and from Hitler to von Ribbentrop.
The Yale Avalon project has digitized these documents and posted them online. Below I have posted a précis of the communications between September 1, when the invasion began, to September 17, when the Red Army entered defeated Poland unopposed. At the bottom is a guide to navigating the archives to the originals.
I think these speak for themselves but I’m prepared to be disillusioned.
Prelude to War–the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
Stalin had indicated that he would like to include on the agenda what validity Germany ascribed to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the separate peace the Bolsheviks had signed with Germany before the ultimate German surrender. The relevant provisions of this treaty are described in this answer.
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Molotov-Ribbentrop-Pact-a-non-aggression-pact-or-an-aggression-pact/answer/Cass-Dean?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=2557180503On August 23, the day of signing of the non-aggression pact, there was an inconclusive discussion of these issues. This had been a rushed process with little preparation for the meeting, so it should have been obvious that nothing significant was going to be signed without more input from Stalin and Hitler themselves. A memorandum was prepared outlining what had been discussed. After the war, at the end of September, an altered version was signed as an addendum to the non-aggression pact.
Now let’s go be a fly on the wall as this plays out on the battlefield.
Stalin, through Molotov, had told Hitler he could not join him because he would need many weeks to mobilize. Actually he was mobilized and put a force near the border to guard against Hitler’s crossing the Curzon Line and heading for the Russian border. Hitler resorted to persuasion, trickery and threats to try to bring Stalin onto the field. Stalin refuses five times to join the invasion of Poland.
Go to here, the first correspondence during the war on Sept. 3:
Nazi-Soviet Relations 1939-1941Page forward with the ‘next document’ button or change the page number in the address bar.
061, September 3, von Ribbentrop to Count Schulenberg: Come on in, the water’s fine.
062, September 5, Schul to GFO: Molotov says no, that’s not the plan.
065, September 9, Schul to GFO: In reply to yours, Congrats on entry into Warsaw (a minor exaggeration). It’s a trick. Hitler is trying to make Stalin think he has taken Warsaw, the seat of government, so Poland has fallen.
066, September 9, von R to Schul: Polish army in state of dissolution. Note it’s the same day. “We’ve taken Warsaw and the Army has fallen apart.”
067, September 9, Schul to GFO: Molotov says (unspecified) “military action” to take place in “next few days.” Stalling.
069, September 10, Schul to GFO: Molotov walks back “few days” to several weeks, Army not ready.
071, September 14, Schul to GFO: Molotov says Red Army ready sooner than expected, awaiting fall of Polish government.
072, September 15, von Ribbentrop to Schul: Threats. Come in now or we’ll have to go to Russian border to prevent a political vacuum in which new states might be constructed. Soviet rationale to protect Belorussians and Ukrainians a non-starter. Protect from whom? Little old us?
073, September 16, Schul to GFO: Molotov says soon, maybe tomorrow or next day. Rationale to protect populations from “possible third parties.”
074, September 17, Schul to GFO: Stalin and Molotov announced at 2 a.m. that the Red Army would cross border at 6 a.m. Germany to please hold planes in east. Soviet Union would take over current German air operations in zone if necessary.
What was agreed in advance and was upheld was that Stalin would not invade Poland with Hitler, but assuming Germany conquered Poland unassisted, Hitler would then cede back to Stalin the parts of western Ukraine and Byelorussia which Poland had forcibly annexed 20 years earlier.
These are the best possible sources. Original documents, signed by the major players, private exchanges not for public consumption, top secret, with impeccable provenance. They are well-known and accessible. They are the first place to begin research. Any historian whose history does not conform to what they tell us is no historian unless most of his paper or article is devoted to explaining and defending the grounds for considering them not definitive.”
“The Hitler Stalin pact was composed of two parts, one public pact for non aggression and another part of distributions of territory, immediately that pact was signed there was a joint invasion of Poland, and the distribution of other territories in Eastern Europe”
Completely false.
Grover Furr: Did the Soviet Union Invade Poland in September 1939? (The answer: No, it did not.)
“As for the world political scene, the grand alliances and the re-alignment of those, I don’t think we can exclude that the Soviet-German Pact in some form or another would still have come about”
There was no “alliance” between the Soviet Union and Germany only a non-aggression pact. Almost every country in Europe had a non-aggression pact with Germany including France and Britain (The Munich Agreement) and Poland (the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact).
Furr has published a book on the trials.
“In this brilliant book, Professor Furr shows that “on the evidence, by means of an objective verification process, the only legitimate conclusion is that the Moscow Trials testimony is genuine, in that it represents what the defendants themselves chose to say.”
He shows that “there is not now, nor has there ever been any evidence that the Moscow Trials defendants were in reality innocent, compelled or persuaded by some means (threats to them or against their families, loyalty to the Party, etc.) to testify falsely.” He sums up, “Every time we can check a statement made in Moscow Trials testimony against independent evidence, we find that the Moscow Trials testimony or charge is verified.”
As Professor Furr states, “The earliest and most dramatic discovery emerged from the Harvard Trotsky Archive [TA] within months of its opening to researchers on January 2, 1980. This was the proof that the bloc of oppositionists inside the Soviet Union had really existed. The existence of the bloc was the chief framework for the conspiracies charged against the defendants in all three Moscow trials. The bloc was the link among the different conspiratorial oppositionist groups in which the Moscow Trials defendants confessed membership. … Defendants in all three Moscow trials testified that Trotskyists, Zinovievists, and other oppositionists inside the Soviet Union had formed a bloc and agreed to carry out assassinations (in Russia, to employ ‘terror’) against Soviet leaders.”
Furr explains, “Very soon after the TA was opened [Trotskyist historian Pierre] Broué and his team began to discover that Trotsky had deliberately lied in his published works. First they found evidence that the bloc of Oppositionists, including Trotskyists, Zinovievists, Rights, and others, had really existed. The activities of this bloc were the major allegation in all three of the Moscow Trials. Trotsky and [his son Leon] Sedov always denied that any such bloc existed and claimed that it was an invention by Stalin. Broué identified documents in the TA that proved that Trotsky and Sedov had lied: the bloc had indeed existed.” For example, in a letter of 1932, Sedov wrote that the bloc “has been organised. In it have entered the Zinovievists, the Sten-Lominadze group and the Trotskyists (former ‘capitulators’).”
Isaak Reingold testified on 3 July 1936, “the fundamental aim of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite bloc was to remove by violence the leadership of the C.P.S.U. and the Soviet Government, and Stalin in the first place. … I know that the Trotskyite section of the bloc received instructions from L.D. Trotsky to adopt the path of terrorism and to prepare attempts on the life of Stalin.”
Grigori Zinoviev testified on 26 July 1936, “I was indeed a member of the united Trotskyist-Zinovievist center organized in 1932. The Trotskyist-Zinovievist center considered as its chief task the murder of leaders of the VKP(b) and, first and foremost, the murder of Stalin and Kirov. The center was connected with Trotsky through its members I. N. Smirnov and Mrachkovsky. Direct instructions from Trotsky for the preparation of Stalin’s murder were received by Smirnov.”
Ivan Smirnov stated, “I admit that Ter-Vaganyan, who with my knowledge conducted negotiations with the Leftists and the Zinovievites in the name of the Trotskyite group, formed in 1932 a bloc with Kamenev, Zinoviev and the Lominadze group for joint struggle against the C.P.S.U. and the Soviet Government, and that L. Trotsky’s instructions regarding terror against the leaders of the C.P.S.U. and the Soviet state were made the basis of this bloc.” Sergei Mrachkovsky testified that “Trotsky replied, agreeing to the formation of a bloc on the condition that the groups uniting in the bloc would agree to the necessity of removing by violence the leaders of the C.P.S.U. and Stalin in the first place.”
Nikolai Bukharin’s friend Jules Humbert-Droz revealed in 1971 that Bukharin told him in 1928 that he and his followers were already planning to kill Stalin: “Bukharin also told me that they had decided to utilise individual terror in order to rid themselves of Stalin.”
NKVD General Genrikh Liushkov defected to the Japanese in June 1938. He told his Japanese handlers that he knew of a military conspiracy involving General Ian Gamarnik, a member of Marshal Tukhachevsky’s group. The conspirators aimed, as US historian Alvin Coox concluded, “to conduct a putsch in the Far East and to reach agreement with the Japanese for help and for combined operations against the Soviet Union.”
In 1987 German historian Ivan Pfaff found a note of 9 February 1937 by Voytech Mastny, the Czech minister in Berlin, recording that the German government believed that “there was a growing probability of a sudden turn of events very soon, the fall of Stalin and Litvinov, and the imposition of a military dictatorship.” Documents from the German Foreign Ministry showed that the General Staff showed a special interest in Tukhachevsky at this time. Furr comments, “This is strong corroboration that Marshal Tukhachevsky was indeed planning a coup against the Stalin regime, as he confessed in late May 1937. There is also a great deal of evidence from within the Soviet archives that the Tukhachevsky conspiracy really existed and that the Soviet commanders were guilty.”
Furr asks us to “consider for a moment what WW2 would have been like if Tukhachevsky and his co-conspirators had been successful. The industrial and military might of the Soviet Union, plus its resources of raw material and manpower, would have been teamed up with those of Hitler’s Germany. … One could conclude that in uncovering and stopping this conspiracy the Soviet leadership – ‘Stalin’ – saved European civilization from Nazism.””
Grover Furr has a home page. You can go there and find all the information you require. On his website you will find an email link. He does answer his emails.
“I learn new things every day.”
Perhaps, but you invariably draw the wrong conclusions.
“I never realised how close China came to another civil war with armies facing down one another.”
That’s because it did not come close to a civil war. As part of the colour revolution attempt Voice of America was broadcasting false reports of PLA mutinies. The broadcasts were happening in real time in hope of engineering just such an outcome. Thankfully, few commanders fell for the ruse and order was restored.
“I never realised how many workers rather than only students were involved such as the Workers Autonomous Federation described here
But who trusts Trotskyists to tell the truth, eh?”
I don’t deny the worker protests. I was aware of them well before you ever were Alan, so don’t presume what I do and don’t know. You’re getting close to the truth of the matter but you are still staring at the cave walls. One more turn and you will see all, but alas, I think it too bright and dazzling for your eyes.
So, we have established that there was no massacre on the Square and that there was a simultaneous worker uprising, correct? What you still fail to comprehend is that there was a third group, the rioters (probably criminal gangs) armed with Molotv cocktails; thousands of them at a time when fuel was strictly rationed in China. Where did all these bombs come from? This element were the linchpin to the success of the regime change operation. The students had not drawn the brutal crack down upon themselves that their leaders had hoped for.
It was thus left to the criminal elements to provoke the government repression required to exacerbate the crisis further. Just as had been done to overthrow Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran.
It was these thugs who no doubt filled most of the body bags that night along with others swept up in the mentality of the mob as well as the soldiers/police and innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire. Tienanmen Square was a failed colour revolution engineered from Washington. Ever since it has been portrayed as an act of savage brutality by western imperialist media and faux-leftists such as those populating this thread.
“Furr has produced no actual evidence despite the extensive access being available to Nazi archives and Stalin-era archives.”
Alan has no authority to discuss Furr’s work because he has not read a word of it. Instead Alan bases his entire critique of Furr on hearsay gathered from two hostile pod-casters whose political views clearly cloud their judgement. Their performance consists of nothing but straw-man and ad hominem attacks while the guest professor misrepresents Furr’s research in an underhanded manner. I reiterate, if the hosts had an ounce of courage they would have invited Furr on to defend his research. The pod-cast and its hosts are a joke.
