The Great Patriotic War: 1939-1943

Re: Myths of the Eastern front

Which ever of the three authors that state that the size of the envelopment at Kiev was "roughly the size of Germany itself," is sadly very mistaken, or there has been a horrible mistake in editing.

At no point in in history since 1870 and the creation of the German state was Germany merely 120 miles (ca 192 km) by 300 miles (giving a rough total area of 36,000 sq mi, or 92,160 sq km) . This fact is easily checked. The Germany of today (post-Cold war reunification) has an area of 137,983 sq mi // 357,376 sq km (or four times larger than the envelopment). Only if the author(s) were referring to the Cold War East German state DDR, could this fact be said to be remotely true: DDR's size was 41,828 sq mi (108,333 sq km). At 20% larger, even this is a stretch, but the description does say "roughly."

Given that Nazi Germany prior to 1941 itself had expanded significantly; Austria, seized in Anschluss was roughly the size of the envelopment, only ca 10% smaller. The portion of Polish territories claimed by Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was roughly the size of the envelopment: 36,000 sq mi, or 94,000 sq km.

So as written, the statement is misleading. Which "Germany" is referred to (Imperial Germany? Pre-war Nazi Germany 1939? 1941? DDR?) Given the context of describing an event in 1941, it would be easy to assume that it refers to the size of Nazi Germany 1941, which in actuality was significantly larger. The conclusion I draw, is that the statement was copied from a Soviet text post war, and the reference originally referred to the rump state that was DDR (but I have no evidence of that beyond the actual figures stated above).

The above facts are readily accessible on wikipedia, the CIA's factbook, or any good encyclopedia. Or by looking at a map. Or you know, just applying good old fashioned common sense.

 

Actually, I express no such skepticism about collaboration. You really need to read more carefully what people actually communicate, and put away your preconcieved notions of what other people know or share. What is known, is that Soviet texts always describe nationalists as collaborators. So what is questionable is what is actually meant with your statement "deep collaboration," and in that context, how much was nationalists merely being pragmatic.

1) It is not hard to find in any state numbering millions, a few thousand sadists / rapists / racists to put together a gang of vicious criminals such as Arajs team of pathological killers. It is something else altogether to assume that the collaboration is "deep."

Fishing? Seriously? You need to take off your rose coloured glasses, and actually read what you posted.

Actually, my point stands;
1) I shouldn't have to read your blog in order to participate in this thread.
2) What you posted here, was not critical of the purges, merely apologetic.

Again, I shouldn't have to go elsewhere to read what you think about something. Just as you can't be bothered to seriously engage with this forum, and instead sit on your high horse "teaching" all us uneducated lowlifes.

Excuse me, but it was you that first brought up the difference between deliberate systemic abuse by the state, and incidental abuse. Apologetic for the Soviet's much? We have threads debating this on this forum too... Perhaps you should read those, instead of being so snarky.

Only by way of inference; i.e. you most definitely did not state explicitly that it was a war of aggression by the USSR.

All fine and dandy. Except when criticized, you say "it's not me, its the authors," yet it's you posting here. You should be able to defend your posts, and not try to continuously dodge debate, as repeatedly explained to you.

Except my issue has never been with Glantz...

Again, read what is written by you; you want to combat "Myths." Yet we also have Soviet myth-making, and today, Pro-russian myth-making, and Nationalism is rearing it's horrid head here in Europe, to a large degree sponsored by Putin's Russia. When we can recognise the wider patterns of propaganda, it is then we can actually combat them.

So, just to make this very clear to you; I do not need to google to acquire knowledge I already have. It is blatantly apparent that you believe you are some incredibly enlightened individual that has knowledge vastly superior to any of us other peons that frequent this forum, without actually knowing anything about us, fundamentally because you have not taken the time over the past three years you have been a member to actually engage with people. You are far more interested on pontificating. You truly do not believe that there is anything we can contribute to your understanding.

So, while you harp on about Nazi propaganda attacking Judeo-Bolshevism, ignoring the fascinating aspects of Communist international propaganda of the 20's and 30's and how it evolved and swapped around; attacking Judeo-Capitalism, etc. The dismisal of Maxim Litvinov from his post as Soviet Minister of foreign affairs in 1939. His crime? He was a Jew. After Litvinov's dismissal, many of his aides were arrested and beaten. Stalin directed Molotov to "purge the ministry of Jews."

I made no such demand. If you looked around the forum more, you would see the nature of the debates here. It is you that are pontificating. You are aware that many of the works you refer to rather valuable, i.e. expensive (over 100 USD), and not readily available for many members? It is sufficient to quote a simple paragraph reinforcing your statement. And clearly indicate what is your opinion / thoughts. The way you post, it is not clear at all what is your text, and what of your text is supported by the books. Clarity is good.

Actually, as clearly indicated by one of the Moderators, after he examined the thread, that it is you that are misbehaving. I didn't treat you unfriendly, hostile, nor offensive, until you started getting all butthurt. I guess your ego can't handle being treated as an equal; we should all place your lordship on a pedestal. You have serious ego problems "Comrade General." Your choice of alias is very telling.

And you did take up the issue of timing... You did express a desire to ban.... And you did explicitly accuse me of being a Nazi Apologist.

 

As to "collaboration;" Communist parties in Nazi-occupied Europe had been ordered to work with the Nazis. After the collapse of France, French Communists were ordered at the time not to resist the Germans. (Terry Cowdry French Resistance Fighter: France's Secret Army. p10.)

The Soviet state is known to have handed over German Communist exiles to Nazi Germany after dividing up Poland with the USSR. The KPD had been the largest European Communist party outside the Soviet Union in 1933. Many had fled Eastward. Not surprisingly, many of them were permanently "purged;" purged in manner you cannot be reinstated from, during the purge of '37-38. German communist Willi Münzenburg was assassinated in France, 1940. NKVD is suspected (but not proven).

Sophisticated Stalin apologists argue that while he may have done some nasty things, it's all right because he was anti-fascist: i.e he defeated Nazi Germany. Yet many of the criminal things done under his regime, were done prior to the Great Patriotic War. All Nationalists are described as Nazi/Fascist collaborators, for example. So it is easy to see how anyone can draw a conclusion pertaining to Comrade General's sympathy's based off his posts in this thread.

Too many modern-day non-communist Russians — and not just Russian nationalists — are disconcertingly apologetic toward Stalin and his regime.

Энциклопедический словарь Русской цивилизации. (In Russian) Encyclopedia of Russian Civilisation

So upon requesting a more nuanced description of Soviet behaviour (especially in relation to the Soviet behaviour in 1939-1940 towards the Baltic states) in this thread, supposedly dedicated to denouncing common myths of the Eastern Front, I get accused of trying to minimalise Soviet suffering, should be banned and now I'm a jerk too...

 

I recall reading there were a couple of reasons why Stalin considered that he was safe. Hitler had made territory requests before attacking earlier. The wool price had not gone up and Stalin thought Hitler was not making winter clothing. The war in the West would last long and Stalin would have time to prepare the Army. Stalin had strong forces close to German border. The western Allied warnings he considered as means to make the relationship with Hitler shake. Kph

 

Diverse interpretations are a standard part of work in history (and many other disciplines) - historians love to disagree with each other, sometimes almost to excess. The category has not, however, been a clear component of world history until relatively recently. World historians worked hard to get their's established. Often, they spent a fair amount of time expressing themselves through textbooks, and textbooks tend to emphasize (or overemphasize) certainties rather than raise deliberate debate. As world history matures, different interpretations begin to emerge more clearly. And imaginative teachers often believe that precisely because textbooks loom large, it is vital to get students thinking about alternative viewpoints, often treating textbooks themselves in terms of points of view rather than definitive statements of truth.
Stearns, P. N. (2011) World History: The Basics. Routledge, New York.
​

Just sayin'.

Thinking about alternative viewpoints, treating textbooks as PoV, rather than definitive truths (Even authors as qualified as Glantz).

PhD-student? In what? Gastroenterology?

 

More insults and rude behavior... I don't believe you about the mod, as still nothing has happened. I gave you another opportunity to back down and still you would not take it. You're going to die on the hill of accusing me of promoting Stalinist atrocities. The burden is entirely on me to demonstrate to you via my work, which is easily accessible, that I am up front about the massacres and crimes committed under the Soviet regime, yet you can throw out accusations about Litvinov without citing a single source.

You can actually access this academic journal article for free right here: The Fall of Litvinov: Harbinger of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact on JSTOR

Long story short he was associated with the policy of collective security against Nazi Germany, but the UK and France refused to align with the USSR against Hitler, just as they had refused to lend official assistance to Republican Spain in the Spanish Civil War. Stalin realized that it made more pragmatic sense to delay war with Hitler for a few years (he didn't know Hitler would have western Europe sown up by 1940) even though the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact made zero ideological sense.

Anyone with a university library card could access my sources. I am not claiming to be anything special by providing sources; I am merely providing the work I am using so they can read it for themselves if they want -- which they should! I realize academic books especially are expensive but actually quite a few of them are affordable used. I picked up the Bellamy book recently for half price.

You're fanatically anti-communist or anti-Soviet or something and you're projecting a bias that does not exist. I tried responding to you on your terms one last time but you just offered more of the same rude insults. Even though I am not a Stalin defender, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Red Army veterans, partisans and survivors who contributed to the defeat of Nazi Germany. As terrible as the Soviet state was, the regular people of the USSR just wanted to live, and denying them life was at the core of the Nazi motivation for the war. If every mention of the genocidal nature of Generalplan Ost requires three mentions of Soviet atrocities, that's your prerogative, but I don't have to follow it.

You're going back on ignore and staying there. It's too bad you don't direct your energy toward something more constructive, like producing your own content rather than making it your mission to pollute my thread. Just sayin'.

 

Re: more insults and rude behaviour... Excuse me, you used the word "Jerk": around here, you get what you give. So let me get this straight; you gave me an "opportunity to back down..." by calling me a jerk?

"Up front;" as in not a whimper about the intimidation and occupation of the Baltic states? Apologetic for the purges, Finnish war crimes, no mention of false flag operations,.... etc.

For an "academic" as yourself, these stories should be well known...

Doesn't disprove what I stated: Nazi Germany wouldn't sign anything with Soviet Russia as long as the foreign minister was a Jew, so Litvinov had to go...

Not everybody has access to a university. This is the interwebs, not the Capital city of the world's richest state.

No. You shouldn't label people so readily. Remember my first foray into this thread; All I asked for, was more nuance about Soviet behaviour. Granted, a bit of an ask for someone that titles themselves "Comrade General," but at least I had hope. Look at what you posted, the PoV and the tone of your content and replies to Kai-Petri, myself, and others. Please indicate a single post where I denigrated Soviet veterans. How any serious academic can elect to describe this place and time period 1939-1941 (assumedly chronologically(?)), and entirely miss the fate of the Baltic states?!? Yet we get massive posts debunking supposed myths, no one here believes in. Talk about pontificating.

It's too bad you don't produce your own content and share ideas that actually are your own, supported by the works of others (which is what I would expect from a PhD student), rather than merely regurgitating the ideas and works of others.

This thread, furthermore, is (still) not your thread. Try to wrap your head around that idea.

Again on the ignore? What is that, the fifteenth time you've stated that? So what? Perhaps you should restate that yet again. And claim ownership one more time.

 

Re Litvinov:

​

Albert Resis "The Fall of Litvinov: Harbinger of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact" work on page 35 also states:

"There is, however, another element of domestic politics in the dismissal of Litvinov and many of his colleagues. Decades later, Molotov recounted that when he had taken over the foreign affairs commissariat, Stalin had said to him: 'Purge the ministry of Jews'. Recalling Stalin's order, Molotov commented: 'Thank God for these words! Jews formed an absolute majority in the leadership and among the ambassadors. It wasn't good. Latvians and Jews .... And each one drew a whole crowd of his people along with him. Moreover, they regarded my arrival in office with condescension and jeered at the measures I began to implement ...'. Absurdly denying any anti-semitism on the part of Stalin, Molotov held that this purge was designed to bring more ethnic Russians into top positions."
​

We find other reflections on this too, by other Historians:

A Nazi German official told the Soviet Ambassador that Hitler was also pleased that Litvinov's replacement, Molotov, was not Jewish.
Brackman, R. The Secret File of Joseph Stalin: a Hidden Life. London: Frank Cass, 2001; pp. 333–334
​

BTW, Resis' "The Fall of Litvinov", on JSTOR, is only free if you have access via a university... otherwise it costs 46.50 USD to download an electronic copy.

So that Litvinov was Jewish seems to have been a rather important fact at the time, at least as far as Molotov remembers. But perhaps Molotov was misremembering.

 

Let us go back and look at Comrade General's posts, and see how well he has been "up front" with Soviet crimes, just on the first page:

"The purges of the 1930s exacted a heavy toll on the Red Army officer corps. Between 1937 and 1939, a little over 35,000 army officers were removed from their posts."​

True. But the declassified Soviet archives, state that during 1937 and 1938, the NKVD detained 1,548,366 persons, of whom 681,692 were shot – an average of 1,000 executions a day (The Tsarists executed 3,932 persons for political crimes from 1825 to 1910 – an average of less than 1 execution per week). This was not just Red Army officers getting expunged from the party. These numbers include civilians. Just so the scale of the Great Purge is understood. According to NKVD statistics, from July 1937 to November 1938, 335,513 persons were sentenced by troikas in the course of the implementation of the National Operations. Among them, 247,157 (or 73.6%) were executed by shooting.

"On November 30, 1939, after a flurry of disputes over border security, Soviet troops invaded Finland."​

No mention of the Soviet intimidation occurring towards all the Baltic states Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland in the year leading up to the invasion. Finland was the only country to resist the Soviet demands for territorial expansion, and to not allow Soviet's the use of bases on their territory. We know the consequences of acquiescence for the other states. The false flag shelling of Mainila was used as an excuse to invade. What exactly, did Finland dispute? That land in Finnish possession should somehow be forfeited to the USSR because the Soviets don't feel safe?

"Despite these setbacks, in December the Soviet Union recognized a provisional government made up of Finnish Reds established in the village of Terijoki."
​

Here, the timeline is skewed. The provisional government was set up on the 1st of December; i.e. barely 1 day after invading... Thus, there was as yet, no real setbacks for the Soviet's to be aware of... And these "Finnish Reds" did not live in Finland, and had not done so for a considerable time.

The original Soviet plan was to only hold the Finnish forces in place at the Mannerheim line; it was expected the forces North of Lake Ladoga would quickly bisect Finland, and render further Finnish defence useless. However, this plan did not anticipate the clever use of Ranger tactics by skilled Nordic skiers; the mechanized Russians were bound to the few poor winter roads. Scores of Finns could delay and hamper thousands of Soviets strung out along a road on the march. Once it became clear that the Sub-Arctic forest in winter was actually a fantastic defensive advantage, there was no choice but to actually force the Mannerheim defences, at huge cost. Acknowledging defeat wasn't really an option in Soviet Russia.

During the Winter War, Soviet planes bombed Finland from bases in neutral Estonia. This was also a war crime.

The Winter War was a breech of the Soviet-Finnish Non-aggression Pact of 1932, reaffirmed in 1934 for a ten year period.

Then we are into Operation Barbarossa, with no mention of life in the now occupied Baltic states prior to June 1941, and the mass deportations, executions, etc.

Consider, for a moment, if you were a modern day national of one of these states, how "a flurry of disputes," paints a really weak picture of what was fundamentally naked Soviet ambition of the time, and how this narrative by Comrade General conceals the needless suffering inflicted upon their forebears, by a Soviet state.

Now, Comrade General seems to have a fascination, as do many others, for the military aspects of the armed conflict between the Soviet state and Nazi Germany. All well and good. And he is rightfully indignant about Nazi war crimes and crimes against humanity. Further, I can to some extent sympathise with his concern for the idolization of the wehrmacht in gnereal and the waffen-SS (yet this is not as he describes, something unique to "the West"), and, yes, there exists narratives that attempt minimise Nazi crimes. But if you take it upon yourself to correct these narratives, and in order to do so in a manner that is credible, you can't allow yourself to gloss over Soviet misdeeds, fail to discuss the fate of the Baltics, nor consistently avoid their discussion, nor do so in a tone and PoV that comes across as so staunchly pro-Stalin, and pro-Soviet. It just can't be done. I will not confuse the sacrifices made by the Soviet soldiers in defence of Soviet Russia, with the many crimes of oppression by the Soviet state.

 

​

Erich Hoepner was born on September 14, 1886 in Frankfurt, Germany. In March 1905, he joined the army as a dragoon and in 1913 entered the War Academy to start his General Staff training. During World War I he served on the Western Front and was part of the general staff at corps, division, and army level. After the war, he remained in the military, holding various positions, and climbing the ranks, reaching major general in 1936 and then lieutenant general in 1938. Like several other prominent German commanders of this time, Hoepner opposed Hitler and the Nazis despite being an anti-communist and an anti-Semite himself; he feared Germany was headed for war due to Hitler’s repeated territorial demands. He joined a clique of senior officers headed by intelligence chief Hans Oster that conspired against Hitler, but British and French appeasement meant Hitler’s behavior until 1939 reaped rewards and not war.

When war finally did break out, Hoepner led XVI Army Corps in the invasion of Poland and then the Battle of France. During this latter complain, he clashed with members of the SS Division Totenkopf, which on May 27, 1940 massacred 97 soldiers belonging to the Royal Norfolk Regiment in Le Paradis, a village in northern France. Army commanders tended to see the Waffen-SS as a rival, substandard paramilitary organization, and despite his knowledge of this behavior, Hoepner did not resign his commission or make a sustained effort to hold those responsible accountable.

Hoepner became commander of Fourth Panzer Group in the preparations for the invasion of the Soviet Union, Operation Barbarossa. In May 1941, he released a statement to his troops ordering them not to spare “adherents of the present Russian-Bolshevik system,” foreshadowing the infamous Commissar Order that decreed the summary execution of all captured Soviet political officers. Hoepner was no less a rabid anti-communist and anti-Semite as were many German conservatives, as illustrated by his use of the “Judeo-Bolshevik” anti-Semitic canard. Regardless of his distaste for the reckless, populist Nazi government. The Soviet Union existed as the ultimate threat in the right-wing German imagination; he shared the belief it needed to be annihilated.

As part of Army Group North, Hoepner and Fourth Panzer Group advanced through the Baltic states toward Leningrad during Operation Barbarossa. On June 27, it decisively defeated Soviet armor at the Battle of Raseiniai in present-day Lithuania and by late July had reached Narva, Estonia. In the meantime, Hoepner implemented the Commissar Order, having over a hundred commissars shot over six days alone, in addition to collaborating with Einsatzgruppe A, a roaming SS death squad acting behind German lines. The death squad’s command described relations with Hoepner as “close” and “warm,” enabling the Einsatzgruppe to arrange pogroms of local Jews. In the first few weeks of Operation Barbarossa, forty pogroms killed around 10,000 Jews.

From August through September Fourth Panzer Group struggled to capture Leningrad but continued to face heavy Soviet resistance. With the city encircled and it surrender appearing imminent, Hoepner and his group moved to Army Group Center to finish off Kiev and then take Moscow before winter. A combination of deteriorating infrastructure, logistical difficulties, and dogged Soviet defenses halted the Germans in the Battle of Moscow. Like his fellow panzer commander Guderian, Hoepner would blame others for the failure to take Moscow, but the reality is that strained and undersupplied German forces stood little chance of a successful urban assault.

In early 1942 Hoepner sought permission to withdraw his forces, badly mauled by a Soviet counteroffensive in the preceding December. On his own initiative, he withdrew before Hitler permitted it, and for this was relieved of his command and discharged from the army. Denied his pension, he successfully appealed in the courts and had it restored. He remained a private citizen but was implicated in the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt on Hitler. He was arrested and executed, made to wear ill-fitting clothes in a show trial, his family also harassed, threatened and detained as part of Nazi collective punishment. For his part in the July 20 plot, Hoepner was considered a martyr of the German anti-Hitler opposition by some, and in 1956 a school in Berlin was named for him. Due to Hoepner’s own stated views and conduct during the German-Soviet war, however, the name was controversial, with teachers and parents deciding in 2009 to rename the school after a Jewish art dealer who fled Berlin in 1936: Nazi era lives on in German schools

Glantz, David. 2012. Operation Barbarossa: Hitler's invasion of Russia 1941. The History Press.

Megargee, Geoffrey. 2006. War of Annihilation: Combat and Genocide on the Eastern Front, 1941. Rowman & Littlefield.

Mitcham, Samuel. 2009. Men of Barbarossa: Commanders of the German Invasion of Russia, 1941. Casemate.

Stahel, David. 2013. Operation Typhoon: Hitler's March on Moscow, October 1941. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Stahel, David. 2015. The Battle for Moscow. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 

What a skewed definition or understanding of what constitutes an insult or rude behavior. Your definition seems to be any act which calls your opinions to question or even hints at the same.

Straw man. I haven't seen a single post where he has accused you of that. Again the quote function on this board works quite well. If he has done so it would be trivial for you to quote the post. Time for you to put up or shut up.

That was rather convoluted. The burden is on you to produce sources when your opinions are called to question. If you call an opinion of ours to question (note asking for sources or questioning logic is not an opinion in this sense) then it is up to us to support that opinion. That's the way this board works.
[/quote]... Long story short he was associated with the policy of collective security against Nazi Germany, but the UK and France refused to align with the USSR against Hitler,[/quote]
Hardly a surprise when Communism could readily be viewed as a greater threat or at least on par with the Nazis.
[/quote]Anyone with a university library card could access my sources. I am not claiming to be anything special by providing sources; I am merely providing the work I am using so they can read it for themselves if they want -- which they should! I realize academic books especially are expensive but actually quite a few of them are affordable used. I picked up the Bellamy book recently for half price.[/quote]
Which totally misses the point. If I say my opinion is supported by material in book x. You might have to read the entire book to find what I was talking about. If it wasn't clear you might read the entire book and not find it. So to prevent people from making grandiose claims and telling a bunch of other, "oh you have to read these books to understand" the convention is when asked for a source a specific one is to be provided. Not a book but ideally a quote or paraphrase along with the relevant chapter and enough information (like page or paragraph numbers) so that people can readily find it. Why expect multiple people to spend hours trying to find something that might not exist when you can do it in a couple of minutes?

One of the hallmarks of a fanatic is he gets upset when his beleifs are called to question. In this thread that would be you.

Who first started with the insults? Who defined questioning and disagreement as rude? A mirror will give you a pretty good view of the individual in question.

Interesting an tattmept to wrap yourself in the flag while implying a straw man.

You should follow your own advice.

As GS has mentioned it's no your thread. He's also produced a fair amount of content but sense you only seem to bother to look at a very few threads I guess you aren't aware of that. Then there's the fact that this is a discussion board. Posting information that's already here and of which at least the regulars here are very aware is hardly producing content of any real merit. Now if you wanted to discus and indeed debate some of the aspects of it we might even produces some additional content and some new insights. However when your attitude is to consider any attempt at such to be "pollution" that prospect is at best dim.

 

Also, perhaps even worse than accusing me of being a Stalinist apologist... DC is not a state. But we still pay taxes. Taxation without representation.

Also why not... Since they're going to beat a dead horse into dust we might as well run with it. This is now a Slavic Safe Space reserved for the Bolshevik intelligentsia. By posting in this thread you're acknowledging Joseph Stalin was the greatest hero of our time and that orgasms were better under communism:

 

What????

Not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand but DC does have representation.

Reality challenged? Slipped off your meds? Or mid school student that considers himself to be an academian? Maybe just an under bridge dweller. Certainly lacking an appreciation for what constitutes a valid logical argument. Does have an inflated opinion of his self worth or is it compensating for a lack of self worth? Over all a waste of bandwidth in any case.

 

Well I guess that proves just how much the good Comrade is unwilling to read what is actually written. Not that we hadn't seen sufficient examples of that before.

To clarify "state" as in 'Nation state'; i.e. the United States of America... But of course, that was the most salient point of all my posts to challenge...

Another thing, you can be a Stalinist apologist without promoting Stalinist atrocities... indeed, it is sort of a prerequisite that you don't promote them... LOL.

 

Damn, reading this thread is an hour of my life that I'll never get back...could a moderator please tell this guy to put down the damned glue pot, brush, and propaganda posters and just go away? There was a good reason Chris Lawrence always said a poly sci student was someone who failed history, but still wanted a university degree.

 

I wonder when we are going to see comments on Soviet leaders not resigning their commissions, or not making sustained efforts to hold their minions accountable...

I'm sure the Soviet pilots responsible for the deliberate downing of the Finnish civilian airliner Kaleva during peacetime (14th June 1940) were appropriately court martialled.

 

Welcome to the ignore list RichTO90. Also, it’s “poli sci,” as in “political scientist.” If you don’t like this thread, then don’t post here. I’m sure I won’t miss your “constructive” posts.

Also, to correct the record... Despite the claims that Litinov was removed purely because he was Jewish, Molotov’s deputy during the negotiations with Germany was a Jew, Solomon Lozovsky. While Stalin did in the end purge many Soviet Jews and planned to deport Jews toward the end of his rule, Stalin was very much anti-Nazi before WWII until the appeasing Allies put him in a situation of making his own deal with the devil.

And the claim that the Kiev kessel was almost as large as Germany’s borders comes from one of the books and was featured in German propaganda at the time. Here it is from Fritz's Ostkrieg, page 144: Imgur

Just more proof that certain folks are willing to lie and even contradict themselves to smear me with lies and distortions. Again, I remain as willing as ever to discuss the Eastern Front if people post respectfully and don’t lead with insults.

 

An oxymoron in any case.

This is not a logical construct.

At that point it wasn't clear to the West who the devil was. Indeed it's still not.

Quote a single case of it. So far despite repeated requests you have failed to do so.

The evidence to date suggest otherwise.

 

Beat me to it, but I was thinking more on the lines of a Tucker Carlson wannabe...

 

Ah... the now infamous non-functional ignore list... I'm sure he's quaking with regret now. Here's an idea; create your own site! Then you can ban everyone else! No need to go on about ignoring people every other post!

No, not purely, but it certainly did not help his cause. Stalin was anti-many things. And very pragmatic.

Interesting. So we're accepting this as a myth in the face of facts? Or is this to be taken as evidence of it's size? You know, given the incontrovertible evidence of the actual size of the state (notice; 'state' in the meaning of Nation) of Germany...

Somehow, this sentence doesn't even make sense in the context in which it was posted. There is only one member currently smearing themselves with lies, distortions and contradictions on this board.

Let me guess: now I'm really going to get ignored.... really, really, really!!!

Or you could just state that you want to ban someone, for 'minimalization of the Nazi approach to the Eastern Front.' Whatever floats your boat. I don't know. Maybe you want to call Rich a jerk too; I'm sure he'd also appreciate the opportunity to back down.