Putin: Nazi-Soviet pact was legitimate; Britain to blame for Hitler's march into Europe

[senheiser]

Putin: Nazi-Soviet pact was legitimate; Britain to blame for Hitler's march into Europe
In Moscow meeting with historians, Russian president insinuates allies, not Soviet Union, were at fault for delaying formation of anti-fascist front in WWII.
By Haaretz | Nov. 7, 2014 | 2:50 AM

Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. Photo by AP




In comments liable to stoke anger in eastern Europe, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the non-aggression agreement signed between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939, was legitimate, and that Britain and France were to blame for Hitler's conquest of much of Europe.

As reported by the Telegraph, Putin made the comments in a Moscow meeting with young historians, during which he aired other revisionist views regarding the lead-up to World War Two.

The Nazi-Soviet Pact included secret protocols to divvy up Poland, Romania, Finland and the Baltic states between the Third Reich and the FSU – an arrangement designed to divide eastern Europe into two spheres of influence. The Kremlin denied the existence of this secret arrangement until 1989, notes the Telegraph.

"Serious research must show that those were the foreign policy methods then," Putin said, appearing to justify then Soviet leader Joseph's Stalin's decision to sign the pact with Adolf Hitler: "The Soviet Union signed a non-aggression treaty with Germany. People say: 'Ach, that's bad.' But what's bad about that if the Soviet Union didn't want to fight, what's bad about it?"

Putin instead laid blame at the feet of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain for signing the 1938 Munich Agreement, thereby paving the way for the Nazi occupation of the Sudetenland. According to a Kremlin transcript of the Wednesday meeting, Putin said that "Chamberlain came, waved a piece of paper and said, 'I've brought you peace' when he returned to London after the talks."

Despite his comments Wednesday, the Telegraph notes that, back in 2009, Putin labelled the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact "immoral,' while still apportioning blame to Britain for signing the Munich Agreement with the Nazis.

@mike2000 @Schutz

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Uh oh. Now this has taken an interesting if a somewhat sorry turn.

 

[Mr.UTurn]

British killed as much if not more people. Hitler /Churchill same different.

 

[Steve781]

British killed as much if not more people. Hitler /Churchill same different.

They bombed us so we bombed them back ten times harder. There was no morality in the war. It was kill or be killed.

 

[C130]

Hitler hated the Slavs and Bolsheviks
I have much admiration for the Soviets for fighting the Nazi as bravely as they did.
but Nazis always had intentions of invading the U.S.S.R for slave labor and resources.
the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was always a sham

a good watch

 

[Mr.UTurn]

They bombed us so we bombed them back ten times harder. There was no morality in the war. It was kill or be killed.

LOL I am talking about more than just WWII . e.g. The artificially engineered Bengal Famine ... or the 3.5 million Indians who lost their lives in WWI + II.

Bengal famine of 1943 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So hitler killed 6 mil. Jews in 12 yrs. Churchil 4 mil indian in 1 yr ... who is the bigger maniac?

 

[Steve781]

LOL I am talking about more than just WWII . e.g. The artificially engineered Bengal Famine ... or the 3.5 million Indians who lost their lives in WWI + II.

Bengal famine of 1943 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So hitler killed 6 mil. Jews in 12 yrs. Churchil 4 mil indian in 1 yr ... who is the bigger maniac?

There was famine all over the world during World War 2. Why is it Churchill's fault?

 

[Mr.UTurn]

There was famine all over the world during World War 2. Why is it Churchill's fault?

No it wasn't ... Indians were producing sufficient food. They were robbed of it ... the video will explain that

Winston Churchill, the hallowed British War prime minister who saved Europe from a monster like Hitler was disturbingly callous about the roaring famine that was swallowing Bengal’s population. He casually diverted the supplies of medical aid and food that was being dispatched to the starving victims to the already well supplied soldiers of Europe. When entreated upon he said, “Famine or no famine, Indians will breed like rabbits.” The Delhi Government sent a telegram painting to him a picture of the horrible devastation and the number of people who had died. His only response was, “Then why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?”

The Bengal Famine: How the British engineered the worst genocide in human history for profit

There was famine all over the world during World War 2. Why is it Churchill's fault?

Here is a more "white" account of his doings

Books: Churchill's Shameful Role in the Bengal Famine - TIME

 

[Aamna Ali]

In WW2 Churchill deliberately starved 6-7 million Indians to death, continued to foster Muslim-Hindu antipathy that led to the horrors of Indian Partition and persuaded his War Cabinet on racist Partition of Palestine.

"I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion"-Entry dated to September 1942 on a conversation held with Churchill in Leo Amery : Diaries.
This is just one of the many anti-India remarks by the man so revered by the english. What was the reason for this hatred?

BBC - Soutik Biswas's India: How Churchill 'starved' India

It is 1943, the peak of the Second World War. The place is London. The British War Cabinet is holding meetings on a famine sweeping its troubled colony, India. Millions of natives mainly in eastern Bengal, are starving. Leopold Amery, secretary of state for India, and Field Marshal Sir Archibald Wavell, soon to be appointed the new viceroy of India, are deliberating how to ship more food to the colony. But the irascible Prime Minister Winston Churchill is coming in their way.

"Apparently it is more important to save the Greeks and liberated countries than the Indians and there is reluctance either to provide shipping or to reduce stocks in this country," writes Sir Wavell in his account of the meetings. Mr Amery is more direct. "Winston may be right in saying that the starvation of anyhow under-fed Bengalis is less serious than sturdy Greeks, but he makes no sufficient allowance for the sense of Empire responsibility in this country," he writes.

Some three million Indians died in the famine of 1943. The majority of the deaths were in Bengal. In a shocking new book, Churchill's Secret War, journalist Madhusree Mukherjee blames Mr Churchill's policies for being largely responsible for one of the worst famines in India's history. It is a gripping and scholarly investigation into what must count as one of the most shameful chapters in the history of the Empire.

The scarcity, Mukherjee writes, was caused by large-scale exports of food from India for use in the war theatres and consumption in Britain - India exported more than 70,000 tonnes of rice between January and July 1943, even as the famine set in. This would have kept nearly 400,000 people alive for a full year. Mr Churchill turned down fervent pleas to export food to India citing a shortage of ships - this when shiploads of Australian wheat, for example, would pass by India to be stored for future consumption in Europe. As imports dropped, prices shot up and hoarders made a killing. Mr Churchill also pushed a scorched earth policy - which went by the sinister name of Denial Policy - in coastal Bengal where the colonisers feared the Japanese would land. So authorities removed boats (the lifeline of the region) and the police destroyed and seized rice stocks.

Mukherjee tracks down some of the survivors of the famine and paints a chilling tale of the effects of hunger and deprivation. Parents dumped their starving children into rivers and wells. Many took their lives by throwing themselves in front of trains. Starving people begged for the starchy water in which rice had been boiled. Children ate leaves and vines, yam stems and grass. People were too weak even to cremate their loved ones. "No one had the strength to perform rites," a survivor tells Mukherjee. Dogs and jackals feasted on piles of dead bodies in Bengal's villages. The ones who got away were men who migrated to Calcutta for jobs and women who turned to prostitution to feed their families. "Mothers had turned into murderers, village belles into whores, fathers into traffickers of daughters," writes Mukherjee.

The famine ended at the end of the year when survivors harvested their rice crop. The first shipments of barley and wheat reached those in need only in November, by which time tens of thousands had already perished. Throughout the autumn of 1943, the United Kingdom's food and raw materials stockpile for its 47 million people - 14 million fewer than that of Bengal - swelled to 18.5m tonnes.

In the end, Mukherjee writes eloquently, it was "not so much racism as the imbalance of power inherent in the social Darwinian pyramid that explains why famine could be tolerated in India while bread rationing was regarded as an intolerable deprivation in wartime Britain". For colonial apologists, the book is essential reading. It is a terrifying account of how colonial rule is direly exploitative and, in this case, made worse by a man who made no bones of his contempt for India and its people.

Bengal famine of 1943 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mike2000]

Hitler hated the Slavs and Bolsheviks
I have much admiration for the Soviets for fighting the Nazi as bravely as they did.
but Nazis always had intentions of invading the U.S.S.R for slave labor and resources.
the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was always a sham

a good watch

Not only that bro. Stalin was even more brutal than Hitler as well, and he killed wayyy more people than Hitler.

Anyway i dont know why Putin is coming out with all these historic news.lool Seems our sanction against him are making him react irrationally. We signed the pact with Hitler back then simply because we didnt want a world war, Chermberlain Naively thought that by doing so, we will avoid a full scale war that will devastate Europe. So it wasnt really our fault, since we were only looking for a peaceful situation out of this crisis. Russia not only signed a non aggression pact with Hitler, but also agreed to carved out/share eastern Europe together, seizing parts of poland, and other eastern european countries.

Moreover as the article says:
'Despite his comments Wednesday, the Telegraph notes that, back in 2009, Putin labelled the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact "immoral,' while still apportioning blame to Britain for signing the Munich Agreement with the Nazis.'

So as we can see, he himself is contradicting hiself about what he said earlier. So you be the judge.

No it wasn't ... Indians were producing sufficient food. They were robbed of it ... the video will explain that



The Bengal Famine: How the British engineered the worst genocide in human history for profit


Here is a more "white" account of his doings

Books: Churchill's Shameful Role in the Bengal Famine - TIME

Nobody said we were saints, But Indians tend to only focus on the bad aspect of what we committed ommiting the good deeds we did as well. Afterall, without us, there wouldnt even be a India today as we all know it today. It will be a divided country from its restive northestern regions to the disputed border we seized from China(Tibet, i.e arunachal pradesh) and incorporated it into India to Kashmir, and other restless states in India etc, all these states who are now justling for independence from India would have long being indpendent countries without us. So before you point out just the bad things we did/famine(which then again wasnt intentional), you have to also recognize the fact that we indeed helped unify India to what it is today. Theres no denying that, even for the most nationalistic Indian

 

[Penguin]

"Serious research must show that those were the foreign policy methods then," Putin said, appearing to justify then Soviet leader Joseph's Stalin's decision to sign the pact with Adolf Hitler: "The Soviet Union signed a non-aggression treaty with Germany. People say: 'Ach, that's bad.' But what's bad about that if the Soviet Union didn't want to fight, what's bad about it?"

IIRC correctly, in addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol that divided territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland into German and Soviet spheres of influence, anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries.

So Putin asks what is bad about that? You figure it out.

Thereafter, Germany proceeded to invade Poland on 1 September 1939. After the Soviet-Japanese ceasefire agreement took effect on 16 September, Stalin ordered his own invasion of Poland on 17 September. Part of southeastern (Karelia) and Salla region in Finland were annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvi, Lithuania, and parts of Romania (Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and the Hertza region).

Yeah, nothing bad about that, eh?

It was not until 1989 that the Soviet authorities admitted the existence of the secret protocol of the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

Seems Putin is now denying it?

 

[Penguin]

Stalin was upset by the results of the Munich conference. The Soviets, who had a mutual military assistance treaty with Czechoslovakia, felt betrayed by France, who also had a mutual military assistance treaty with Czechoslovakia. The British and French, however, mostly used the Soviets as a threat to dangle over the Germans. Stalin, however, concluded that the West had actively colluded with Hitler to hand over a Central European country to the Nazis, causing concern that they might do the same to the Soviet Union in the future, allowing the partition of the USSR between the western powers and the fascist Axis. This belief led the Soviet Union to reorient its foreign policy towards a rapprochement with Germany, which eventually led to the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in 1939.

 

[Schutz]

So the mass murderers and completely psychos that are Stalin and Hitler were not to blame for war, its well known that Russians and Germans alike like to bully their small neighbours and landgrab, no different today.

As for the Indians, yeah they had the rough end of the stick but with your gigantic population and history of famines and deaths going back a long time its not really a surprise that a time in the world where people all over were dying from starvation/bullets/bombs that a poor overpopulated country would lose alot of people, still tiny in comparison to what Stalin/Hitler achieved so im not sure how Churchill is worse, they were all pricks though and I doubt any of them would have given a second thought to an Indian dying or a local white man so if any of them were in the same position they would have done the same.

 

[INDIC]

still tiny in comparison to what Stalin/Hitler achieved so im not sure how Churchill is worse,

4 millions starved to death looks tiny to you. That just top of the iceberg, they had same history throughout 150 years of British Raj.

 

[INDIC]

Remembering India’s forgotten holocaust | Rakesh Krishnan Simha