August 23, 2009 — Contents

SUNDAY AUGUST 23 CONTENTS

(1)  EDITORIAL:  The Putin Kremlin is Clincally Paranoid

(2)  Another Blogger Prosecuted in Putin’s Russia

(3)  Mother Russia Still Loves her Some Stalin 

(4)  Lonely Russia Spurned by the Planet

(5)  Annals of Russian Insanity

7 responses to “August 23, 2009 — Contents

  1. … and you missed the 70th anniversary of the Molotov-Rippendrop pact, the secret protocols of which carved up Eastern Europe into “spheres of influence” between the nazis and the commies, thus laying the cornerstone of WW II.

    you also missed the 20th anniversary of the Baltic Way.

    Pray tell, will you miss the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall (that’s in November) in favour of reporting “the annals of Shamapova” as well?

    LA RUSSOPNOBE RESPONDS:

    Your notion that political coverage has been avoided in order to make room for Sharapova reporting has no basis whatsoever and is totally false. No material is ever pushed aside so we can write about Sharapova.

    Moreover, when was the last time YOU offered us some content that we rejected? It’s hardly a one-way street, you know. If you’d like to write something about this topic or suggest we republish something, why dont’ you take some initiative? You don’t even post a link in your comment, rather hypocritical.

  2. correction: you didn’t completely miss the MRP, and I should learn to scroll to see what’s hideden behind some of the more ambiguous post titles.

    One would think that La Russophobe would grasp at the opportunity to harp more on Russia’s past evils though. On this one, I wish you did.

    LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:

    If you read a little more carefully you’ll see that we mention Russia’s stabbing the allies in the back almost every chance we get. We’ve devoted whole editorials to this topic in the past and don’t feel restricted by “anniversary” dates in doing so. Click the “history” category in our sidebar to read more about this topic, that is what it is there for.

  3. Hmmm… and I was standing in Baltic Way, and I missed it too. After all, it was a commemoration of an event 50 years prior, not an event by itself. So, what is the significance of the 20th anniversary of 50th anniversary?

    Maybe, it’s better to read, then to think, then to think again – and then post. Otherwise one comes across as sanctimonious and silly.

    • @Hmmm… and I was standing in Baltic Way, and I missed it too. After all, it was a commemoration of an event 50 years prior, not an event by itself. So, what is the significance of the 20th anniversary of 50th anniversary?

      Because this blog didn’t report it originally 20 years ago? And hey, he’s right about “the annals of Shamapova”.

      LA RUSSOPHOBE RESPONDS:

      Just FYI, Robert, our posts about Sharapova are quite popular. In fact, right now one of them is the top 5 posts on this blog for traffic as clearly shown in our sidebar. Just because it’s not your cup of tea does not mean it is proper for you to try to quash them. There might be many who think we should do less of the material YOU like, and we don’t listen to them either — because, after all, none of you is running a more successful blog than we are, now are you?

  4. alright, how about this: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/278155 that should give enough fodder to shoot at both Obama and Russia, and Roosevelt too – whole history of leaving your supposed allies in the cold.

    I admitted the silly and apologised for the silly, quite unlike most of the commentators here, thank you for taking that into account when starting to bash me for the silly. Awesome going there…

    • Good article thanks yks.

      It is interesting to note, that despite being effectively thrown to the wolves last year Georgia is responding to a request by NATO to provide troops for service in Afghanistan.

      About 170 Georgian special forces and an infantry battalion will be sent, the special forces in november, and an infantry battalion early next year.

      http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=21365

      What the western europeans (and to an extent the US) need to remember is that loyalty works bot ways.

  5. A good article from BBC about how Stalin wanted to create a war between Germany and Britain/France in order to “take advantage” later (ie invade wetern europe and bring Russian totalitarian communism with him).

    Stalin’s bid for a new world order
    In the fourth of a series of articles marking the outbreak of World War II 70 years ago, the BBC Russian Service’s Artyom Krechetnikov assesses Soviet leader Joseph Stalin’s motivations behind the 1939 Soviet-Nazi pact.

    Soviet government documents released since the USSR’s collapse give us a clear idea of what drove Stalin’s thinking in concluding the non-aggression treaty – the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact – with Nazi Germany.

    On 19 August 1939, just days before the agreement was signed in Moscow, in a speech to a hastily-convened session of the Politburo, Stalin said the “question of war and peace is entering a decisive phase”.

    He predicted that the outcome would depend entirely on whichever strategic position the USSR decided to adopt.

    Should the Soviet Union form an alliance with France and Britain, he opined, Germany would be forced to abandon its territorial demands on Poland.

    This, Stalin suggested, would avoid the threat of imminent war, but it would make “the subsequent development of events dangerous for the Soviet Union”.

    Should the USSR sign a treaty with Germany, Stalin suggested, Berlin would “undoubtedly attack Poland, leading to a war with the inevitable involvement of France and England”.

    Looking ahead, Stalin suggested that “under these circumstances, we, finding ourselves in a beneficial situation, can simply await our turn [to extract maximum advantage]”.

    What is clear is that Stalin not only appeared unconcerned about the prospect of an attack from Nazi Germany, he actually considered such an attack impossible.

    “Our aim is to ensure Germany can continue to fight for as long as possible, in order to exhaust and ruin England and France,” he said. “They must not be in a condition to rout Germany.

    “Our position is thus clear… remaining neutral, we aid Germany economically, with raw materials and foodstuffs. It is important for us that the war continues as long as possible, in order that both sides exhaust their forces.”

    Criticism

    Many western historians believe that the Anglo-French security guarantees given to Poland effectively turned Stalin into the arbiter of Europe.

    On 3 May 1939, Stalin replaced the pro-Western, Jewish Foreign Minister Litvinov, with Vyacheslav Molotov. It was a strong signal that he wanted to improve relations with the Nazis.

    Official Russian history asserts that Stalin believed that Germany, even if it were to emerge from war as a victor, would be so exhausted that it would be unable to wage war with the USSR for at least a decade.

    The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact drew unequivocal criticism from Communists outside the USSR.

    Stalin invited the head of the Comintern, the international Communist organisation founded in Moscow, to explain his thinking.

    “Hitler does not understand or want this, but he is undermining the capitalist system,” he said. “What we can do is manoeuvre around the two sides, push one of the sides to attack the other.”

    In a written note to foreign Communist parties, Stalin asserted: “The salvation of English-French imperialism would be a violation of Communist principles. These principles in no way exclude a temporary agreement with our common enemy, Fascism.”

    So was there an alternative?

    In the spring and summer of 1939, Stalin could have forged an alliance with Western democracies. Such a move may have prevented a world war, with Europe’s borders remaining unchanged.

    The problem with this, for Stalin, was that it would have delayed what he viewed as the “final global victory of Communism” for an indeterminable period.

    Stalin’s actions and deeds made it clear that he could not conceive a protracted period of “peaceful co-existence”, the notion that came to determine the Soviet Union’s policy towards the capitalist world after Stalin’s death.

    Stalin and Hitler were united by their desire to destroy the old world order, and to rebuild it as they wanted.

    Arguably, this made Soviet-Nazi friendship as inevitable as was its rapid, explosive end.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8218887.stm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s