FED: The USSR entered the fight against the Nazis only after UK stood alone for almost two years. This is because Stalin was allied with Hitler before June 1941.
Re: Actually, the Soviet Union started actively opposing Nazism and Fascism in the mid-1930’s when Francisco Franco, as a representative of the old monarchist power, allied himself with all the reactionary forces in Spain and abroad, took up arms against an elected leftist/republican government and then started receiving aid from Germany and Italy in the form of war material but also – troops. The Soviet Union was the ONLY country in the world (not counting Mexico which was too far away and too poor) that decided to help the popular antifascist forces.
It was obvious from the very start (since the end of the First world war) that Nazis and Fascists harbored extremely anti-Soviet sentiments which were best described by Hitler’s so-called Lebensraum policy (Mein Kampf, 1925) in which he advocated his plans for the extermination, resettlement and the enslavement of the Slavic nations, primarily Russians. So, in the late 1930’s it was also obvious that war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was inevitable. The Soviets tried establishing a tripartite security pact with Britain and France but these negotiations failed miserably due to the policy of appeasement which the Anglo-French governments were pursuing at that time.
FED: There is no difference between the USSR and Nazi Germany because they both attacked their neighbours. They were both motivated by lust for more territory and expansive aggression inherent in their political systems. Yes, I’m talking of Finland. The USSR was expelled from the League of Nations because of that. What more proof do you need?
Re: Finland was by that time politically and militarily very close to Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union feared having Finnish forces so close to Leningrad (only 30 km). For security reasons, the Soviets asked for the port of Hanko, four islands and an isthmus on the Finnish side of Karelia so that they could effectively close off the Gulf of Finland in case of war with Germany. In return, the Soviet Union offered parts of Soviet Karelia, twice the size of what was asked from the Finns. Under German pressure, they refused. War broke out.
The USSR was expelled from the League of Nations because this organization was dominated by capitalist interests which sought destruction of the first socialist state from its very inception. How can we expect to find an unbiased and fair arbitrator from the imperialists that sent their troops to crush the Soviet revolution only two decades earlier? They weren’t interested in Soviet security concerns. Some of them were probably hoping that the Nazis would triumph in what they themselves failed to accomplish during the Intervention.
FED: Stalin signed an alliance with Hitler and agreed to participate in the aggression against Poland.
Re: No, he didn’t. First off, it was never an alliance but a non-aggression pact. It needs to be accentuated that some people (deliberately or not) confuse this with an alliance pact. Allies don’t need a non-aggression pact. Allies help and defend each other in wars. Non-aggression only means that two parties are in an agreement to not attack one another (which implies a history of preexisting hostile relations). Fun fact, Poland had a non-aggression pact with Germany from 1934 till 1939 and you never hear anyone say that Poland was allied with the Nazis. Poland even participated in the carving of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 but you never hear anything critical about Polish policies during this period. Why? Well, I’d imagine because it’s not appropriate to ruin a perfectly good anti-Soviet narrative where communist = nazi.
Also, many people are forgetting or intentionally omitting the fact that Poland occupied western Belorussia and western Ukraine in the war of 1919 – 1921. Even after intensive efforts by the Polish government to colonize (in effect, Polonize) these areas, by 1939 they were still predominantly populated by Belorussians and Ukrainians. Only 16 days after Germany invaded Poland (after which Poland ceased to exist) did the Soviet Union enter and liberate these areas which were rightfully Soviet. What was the alternative? To let the Nazis occupy western Belorussia and western Ukraine, slaughter these people and push their armies that much closer to Moscow?
FED: Joseph Stalin is even worse than Hitler. He starved his own people in Ukraine. Denying Holodomor is the same thing as denying the Holocaust.
Re: Deliberate genocide by starvation orchestrated by Stalin, eh? Never happened. First reports about this “atrocity” appeared in the official Nazi newspaper (Völkischer Beobachter) in 1934 in which they used photos taken during the Russian civil war and the starvation in the Volga region, as proof that there was genocide happening in the 1930’s Ukraine. This propaganda was quickly disseminated by the Hearst press (right-wing, Nazi-sympathizing media house in America) before the war, and then again picked up by the Ukrainian exiles – former members of the SS and other fascist collaborationist organizations such as the OUN with all its factions.
There’s an excellent book by Douglas Tottle with the title “Fraud, Famine and Fascism; The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard” in which he focuses on exposing the connections, origins and the continuing motivations which hide behind these genocide allegations. Find it on Library Genesis.
In short, although there probably was some hunger (due to various reasons and for a very limited time period), it was definitely not deliberately orchestrated by Stalin or the Soviet government and the scale of it was certainly not as huge as the Nazi propagandists (and those regurgitating their lies) wish it to be.
Tottle said it best on page 73 (or 81 if you’re using the pdf-version) of his book:
FED: Stalin was a paranoid, bloodthirsty maniac. Worse than Hitler. The Purges, OMG, the Purges!!
Re: Khm, everyone’s now so quick to denounce the Purges as a criminal act and say that every accused person was innocent. This is a clear demonstration of an ahistorical approach to the subject matter at hand. At that time, it was clear to most people that the conspiracy to remove the Soviet leadership and derail the rapid Soviet industrial advance (which was the key to Nazism’s defeat) was all too real a threat. Independent observers with experience in litigation such as the U.S. ambassador Joseph E. Davies (you can read his memoirs titled “Mission to Moscow” and watch a movie based on the book) said that nothing what he saw and heard during the trials made him doubt that the accused ringleaders were actually guilty of sabotage, conspiracy and high treason. He also said that the real meaning behind those trials only became fully clear to him after the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union because he noticed that the Soviet Union was the only country which was invaded by Germany that didn’t have a fifth column ready to take over and collaborate with the Germans (maybe his claim could be extended to Poland as well). This peculiarity, said Davies, resulted from the fact that the Soviets shot their traitors.
What happened in the second part of the Purges is a slightly more complex matter. Some of these traitors managed to survive only by creating a diversion, acting like zealots, asking for more executions and less trials. People like Yezhov (Grover Furr in his book “Khrushchev lied” quoted a statement (p.294) from a witness who said that Yezhov’s main task was to “deflect the blow from their own cadres and to try to direct it against honest cadres who were devoted to the Central Committee.”) and Khrushchev. It was Stalin and Beria who ended the Purges when they saw them spiraling out of control. Khrushchev, unfortunately, weaseled his way through.