Neutrality in History IS a bias.

[Datawolf]

Thanks for clearing that up. I thought that was how it worked, but Neeek phrased it in a way that scared the intestinal slush out of me.

[sabs]

Belgian Government? Do they even have one of these?

[Username17]

Part of the treaty is both sides recognizing the new border between Poland and the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union therefore surrendered its claim to the territory past the Curzon line

Wow. You're kidding.

I guess that Nazi Germany didn't actually militarily occupy parts of France, because France signed a treaty ceding that territory? You know that treaties signed under duress don't count for shit when determining whether a belligerent nation is occupying lands of another, right?

Poland occupying Ukraine and Belarus was a terrible mistake on many levels. First, it blew off any potential good will the Poles had with the White Russians and Ruthenians, spoiling their hopes of remaking the empire of Poland-Lithuania. Secondly, it gave them a big area that was full of hostile natives that they couldn't control or defend. And lastly, it gave a permanent causus beli to Belarus and Ukraine to take their fucking territory back. Which since Soviet territories were modernizing way faster than Poland was, they were eventually going to be able to do.

But bottom line: if you invade someone and take their land, it doesn't suddenly become OK just because you got them to sign a piece of paper.

-Username17

[Zinegata]

Last post until someone actually posts a new argument instead of regurgitating bullshit like Frank is doing. Because I'm only really bothering do post real facts about these cases at the request of fbmf, not because I think Frank Trollman would actually admit that he's regurgitating bullshit.

The Peace of Riga was not signed "under duress". The Soviet Union never even protested the terms, unlike the Germans at Versailles. Moreover, again - if the Soviet Union hated the treaty so much, then why did they ALSO sign a non-aggression pact with the Poles a few years later?

You do not sign a Peace Treaty and then a Non-Aggression Pact with a country you're supposedly sore with.

Fact is, the Soviet Union gave up the claims to those lands in the Peace of Riga. And for the third time, let me repeat myself: Even the Soviet Union itself didn't even use that as their excuse in 1939:

Soviet diplomacy claimed that they were "protecting the Ukrainian and Belarusian minorities of eastern Poland since the Polish government had abandoned the country and the Polish state ceased to exist"

So really, even the Soviet government of 1939 disagrees with Frank.

But hey, since it's Frank Trollman who's saying it, he can apparently go back in time and change what the Soviet government actually said in favor of his own delusional version of history.

========

Finally, I will go on one last tangent regarding this issue:

What has not been mentioned throughout this entire hoopla is the fact that this is one of the few cases where you can make an almost 100% correlation between the actions of two nations. I've been waiting for people to realize this, but some people were off making 98% vs 99% distinctions.

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union both plotted to destroy Poland at the exact same time. They signed one mutual document agreeing to it (the Molotov Ribbentrop-Pact). The Soviets in 1989 even admitted that all this was true. It doesn't get better than that.

Now, Frank has been valiantly trying to excuse the Soviet Union by claiming that the Poles were occupying Soviet land. They did gain around 135K square kilometers from the treaty.

However, that ignores the fact that Nazi Germany also had German lands "under Polish occupation". As part of the Treaty of Versailles (which the Germans definitely signed under duress - to the point they signed under protest), the Germans gave huge tracts of land to Poland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_ ... al_changes

Which totals around 100K square kilometers, and includes traditionally German provinces such as Posen and Upper Silesia, plus bits of Prussia. In fact, World War 2 started specifically because Germany wanted the city of Danzig back from Poland.

So really, there is ZERO difference between the Soviets and the Nazi Germans in this case. They both conspired to destroy Poland. You can't excuse the Soviet Union because "Poles occupied Soviet territory". The Poles "occupied" German territory too!

If you're saying the Soviet Union is innocent of "crimes against peace" because they were just recovering lost territory, the same applies to Nazi Germany.

In short, Frank Trollman is arguing that Hitler was right to start World War 2.

==========

Now, I'm pretty sure most people will agree that "Hitler was right to start World War 2" is a stupid argument, so it would be a good time to stop listening to Frank's lunacy and instead focus on the reality of what happened in 1939.

It is fact that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany both plotted against Poland. They both broke treaties and entered into secret agreements to do this. Neither side can claim being morally better than the other on the basis of trying to "recover" land they used to own from the Poles - That argument was stupid to begin with; the legal reality is that the land rightfully belonged to Poland because Germany had signed the Versailles treaty and the Soviets had signed the peace of Riga. End of story.

======

So if the Soviets did the exact same thing as the Germans in 1939, why weren't they prosecuted for crimes against peace in 1945? Isn't this some kind of travesty against justice?

The answer: Yes, but there are other mitigating factors.

Certain events happened between 1939 and 1945. The Soviets called it the "Great Patriotic War", wherein 20 million Soviet citizens died while defending the Soviet Union from the Nazis.

The Soviet Union, by virtue of this sacrifice, also took on the brunt of the fighting against Nazi Germany. There is an old saying: In the great war against Hitler, the British gave time, the Americans gave money, and the Russians gave blood. While it's a huge generalization, there is a very real grain of truth behind it.

Even the Poles - who hated the Soviets for backstabbing them - found it in their hearts to fight alongside the Soviets as allies during 1941-1945. Seriously - the Polish People's Army numbered 200,000 troops by the end of the war and took direct orders from Soviet high command

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_con ... rld_War_II

So when 1945 rolled along, and it was time to hang Ribbentrop for his war crimes, it proved very difficult for the Western Allies to apply justice evenly. How can you hang someone who won the war for you?

Equal justice for all may be the ideal, but are you really going to tell a veteran of Stalingrad that "Your country is no better than Nazi Germany because of what you did to the Poles, and Molotov should hang as a war criminal!". Of course not.

International justice is a complicated issue, because unlike in regular civil or criminal cases the effects of prosecution are far more wide-reaching. Context matters. Consequences matters. A judicial ruling will have political consequences far beyond the case itself.

That's why making distinctions matter. Winning the war and losing 20 million people in the process is a worthy distinction to warrant turning a blind eye.

Arguing over how the Soviets were justified for invading Poland because they "lost" 135K of territory while the Germans lost "only" 100K? That's just irrelevant 98% vs 99% distinctions.

[RadiantPhoenix]

You do not sign a Peace Treaty and then a Non-Aggression Pact with a country you're supposedly sore with.

You do if you don't have the military capacity to fight back. Stop being a fucking idiot.

[A Man In Black]

The Peace of Riga was not signed "under duress". The Soviet Union never even protested the terms, unlike the Germans at Versailles. Moreover, again - if the Soviet Union hated the treaty so much, then why did they ALSO sign a non-aggression pact with the Poles a few years later?

Are you not familiar with the concept of suing for peace, Zinegata?

[Gx1080]

On the danger of putting this back on topic, the capability to discuss history on a calmed way is important to truly understanding it. I believe that the above is a neccesary step to avoid repeating the mistakes of others.

For example, the Franco-Vietnamese war or the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Those examples were clear as the day, were completely ignored and, well, the rest is history. Recent history.

[Neeeek]

Am I simply reading this wrong? Or does this apply only to particularly nasty large scale crimes like mass murder, genocide, human trafficking and the like?

I'm not sure it necessarily even applies to mass murder, honestly. Piracy, genocide, human trafficking, and certain war crimes are the entire list, I believe. Possibly terrorism, I'd have to check on that.

[Zinegata]

The Peace of Riga was not signed "under duress". The Soviet Union never even protested the terms, unlike the Germans at Versailles. Moreover, again - if the Soviet Union hated the treaty so much, then why did they ALSO sign a non-aggression pact with the Poles a few years later?

Are you not familiar with the concept of suing for peace, Zinegata?

This is what's called making yet another 98% vs 99% distinction.

Sure, you can argue that the Peace of Riga was the Soviets suing for peace. It's still totally irrelevant though: Because the Germans were also "suing for peace" in the Treaty of Versailles.

If you say that Hitler demanding Danzig back is a criminal offense because he signed Versailles (where the Germans explicitly said they were forced to sign the treaty), then the Soviets demanding bits of Ukraine back is also a criminal offense because they signed Riga (where the Soviets did not even protest the terms of the treaty).

And if you go by Nuremberg, the judgment was crystal clear: Hitler demanding Danzig back WAS a crime against peace, punishable by death.

Stop muddling the issue with inane 98% vs 99% distinctions because you want to excuse the Soviet Union of crimes against humanity. By the Nuremberg standard, they were totally guilty, and the Soviets all but admitted this was the case in 1989.

========

Moreover:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Sov ... ssion_Pact

The Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact was signed in 1932. That is eleven years after the Peace of Riga, by which point the Soviets had won the Civil War and had largely rebuilt their forces.

So RadiantPhoenixes assertion that the Soviets "did not have a capacity to fight back"? Utter lunacy, especially with the 1932 Non-Aggression Pact.

Again, honorable countries do not sign a peace treaty (or "sue for peace", whatever), pretend to be friends for 18 years, sign FURTHER treaties promising peace between the two nations in the interim, and then launch a surprise invasion.

For the final time: The Soviet Union did not have a valid casus belli against Poland in 1939. Even the fucking Soviet Union itself admits they had no casus belli in 1939. Do I have to quote their OFFICIAL reason for invading Poland in 1939 for a FOURTH time because you're all a bunch of goddamn dishonest shits?

So really, who shall we believe? Man in Black, Frank Trollman, and Radiant Phoenix? Or shall we believe a Masters in International Relations, and the stated words of the Soviet Union itself, who never used the territorial losses of the Peace of Riga as a casus belli?

This is not disputable. If you want to continue this inane argument, then go and argue with the Soviet Union itself.

[Zinegata]

For example, the Franco-Vietnamese war or the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. Those examples were clear as the day, were completely ignored and, well, the rest is history. Recent history.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was particularly preposterous in its casus belli: They claimed that the president of Afghanistan had "invited" Soviet forces to enter the country, on the same day the Spetznatz assassinated him.

On the flip side, there are plenty of other examples involving the United States "intervening" in other nations which can arguably fall under the "crimes against peace" statute as well. Vietnam and Panama for less recent examples, Iraq in more recent ones.

But in reality, prosecuting crimes against peace fell out of favor since 1945, in large part because the Allies realized what a can of worms it could open.

[RadiantPhoenix]

So really, who shall we believe? Man in Black, Frank Trollman, and Radiant Phoenix? Or shall we believe a Masters in International Relations, and the stated words of the Soviet Union itself?

You haven't made any sufficient argument to refute mine -- the only thing you might have made a case for would be that it isn't relevant.

If one does not have the capacity to fight back (which may or may not have been true in 1932 -- I suspect that others will be able to furnish arguments either way on this far more effectively than myself), then yes, you totally fucking do play nice until you can rectify the situation, because if you don't, the other guy will probably even further remove your capacity to fight back. The only reason you wouldn't would be if they were still beating you up even though you were trying to play nice.

[Zinegata]

You haven't made any sufficient argument to refute mine -- the only thing you might have made a case for would be that it isn't relevant.

Okay, let me put is more simply then.

You are a liar.

Address how the Soviet Peace of Riga was so much different from the German Treaty of Versailles, or shut the fuck up.

Dismissing it ain't refuting it. That's just copping out because even the fucking Soviet Union itself is laughing at your arguments.

If one does not have the capacity to fight back (which may or may not have been true in 1932 -- I suspect that others will be able to furnish arguments either way on this far more effectively than myself), then yes, you totally fucking do play nice until you can rectify the situation, because if you don't, the other guy will probably even further remove your capacity to fight back. The only reason you wouldn't would be if they were still beating you up even though you were trying to play nice.

Oh, I see. You're actually that fucking retarded. So you are saying that it's okay for nations to "play nice" but secretly plot to destroy another country.

By the Nuremberg standards, you're advocating crimes against humanity. And that's not a term of endearment.

Really, who's the side who's supposedly "excusing" evil again?

[A Man In Black]

Sure, you can argue that the Peace of Riga was the Soviets suing for peace.

And I was. Not sure why you're lumping me in with everyone else, since I wasn't making any further arguments. Feel free to carry on yelling at people who are actually arguing with you about the main points.

[Zinegata]

Sure, you can argue that the Peace of Riga was the Soviets suing for peace.

And I was. Not sure why you're lumping me in with everyone else, since I wasn't making any further arguments. Feel free to carry on yelling at people who are actually arguing with you about the main points.

If your intent was just to make a point of order, then lumping withdrawn.

Personally, the matter is mostly moot whether it could be "suing for peace" or not (the Polish were also pretty banged up up by then and wanted a treaty too).

[PhoneLobster]

So really, who shall we believe? Man in Black, Frank Trollman, and Radiant Phoenix? Or shall we believe a Masters in International Relations, and the stated words of the Soviet Union itself?

You really shouldn't quote Zinegata, there is enough spam from his multi post style that it messes up the thread through my ignore ALREADY.

But. Really. Masters of International Relations hey.

So a Masters of International Relations did the following.

1) Entered a Discussion of how very evil at a Nazi like level the Civil War South was... on the side of apologists saying it actually was all nice like.

2) Decided to prove that with a chain of logic that required "If the South is bad like Nazis because they did things like Nazis then you must believe ANYONE who did ANYTHING like Nazis is equal bad!"

3) Decided to pick the Soviet Union as his "then we must also condemn!" target. Because as a dude on the internet claiming to have a Masters of International Relations he appears to think that no one actually ever condemns the Soviet fucking Union of being evil. I mean NO ONE would ever do that. Certainly not the same nation or historical tradition that glorifies the Civil War South. Naaaaah...

4) Decided to pick a specific example that itself is both factually and logically flawed. When he COULD in actual fact have just picked mass murder of civilians and had the exact same comparison point for ALL THREE would be condemned bad guys. (Presumably in fear that if he mentioned Stalin only then might people remember that the Soviet Union in fact HAS BEEN and often IS widely condemned as evil)

5) Managed to look like a gigantic idiot, made numerous multiple posts of gibberish that seem to imply he cannot even multi-quote or otherwise address more than one person at once, and ONLY THEN pulled out his supposed Masters. Because you know. THAT is going to salvage his position. Rather than make him look even fucking stupider.

What a Masterful expert on history education. Touche good sir. Touche.

[Koumei]

I assumed, reading that quote, that Zine isn't talking about himself and had linked to a master earlier (self-proclaimed or otherwise), who said something relevant to the discussion that theoretically proves us all wrong forever.

I'd click-through and check, but... well, yeah. I'm sure you understand.

[PhoneLobster]

I assumed, reading that quote, that Zine isn't talking about himself

With absolutely no rewording the entire post ALSO applies to his imaginary dad who has a Masters in totally beating up all our dads.

[Zinegata]

I find it very funny that PL is so retarded that he thinks I claimed that I had a Master's Degree in International Relations.

Read again. I had a conversation with a friend who has a Master's Degree in International Relations, and who has worked six years in the US Department of Defense as an analyst. And who is so knowledgeable about the issue that he knows the Polish-Soviet War, what a casus belli is, and that '39 refers to the Soviet invasion of Poland.

Moreover, again, even if you don't want to listen to a real expert, then why don't you take a read at the stated words of the Soviet Union itself? For the fifth time, because it's fun to hammer people in the head when they employ Wall of Ignorance:

Soviet diplomacy claimed that they were "protecting the Ukrainian and Belarusian minorities of eastern Poland since the Polish government had abandoned the country and the Polish state ceased to exist"

"We are protecting our minorities because the Polish government can't anymore" is not the same as "We are taking back the land which was rightfully ours!".

Someone with a Master's Degree in International Relations & Soviet Union itself are weightier experts on the subject of the Polish-Soviet War than you, Radiant Phoenix, or even Frank Trollman ever will be.

[A Man In Black]

I find it very funny that PL is so retarded that he thinks I claimed that I had a Master's Degree in International Relations.

Read again. I had a conversation with a friend who has a Master's Degree in International Relations, and who has worked six years in the US Department of Defense as an analyst. And who is so knowledgeable about stuff

PL has you on ignore because you're kind of an annoying blowhard, so he only sees what people quote. I'm not entirely sure why, you're about par for the course in MPSIMS as far as I can tell.

[Zinegata]

PL has you on ignore because you're kind of an annoying blowhard, so he only sees what people quote. I'm not entirely sure why, you're about par for the course in MPSIMS as far as I can tell.

Blowhard? Really?

Nah, PL has me on ignore because he doesn't like getting shot to pieces in a debate like when he tried to change history by claiming that the Taliban offered to give up Bin Laden back in the wake of 9/11 when no such substantive offer was ever made.

But hey, sure, keep up with the namecalling, because you've also pretty much reduced yourself down to his level with your passive-aggressive shit.

[A Man In Black]

Yes, blowhard. Look at how awesome the credentials of the people you know are, etc. A mild and specific insult. Are we really nitpicking insults now?

[Zinegata]

Yes, blowhard. Look at how awesome the credentials of the people you know are, etc. A mild and specific insult. Are we really nitpicking insults now?

Sure, I'm not doing anything right now, so let's proceed with nitpicking insults pointlessly!

The fact is you're hurling "mild and specific" insults in defense of PL, who made an outright and blatant mistake because he never actually fucking reads what other people wrote and just regurgitates the BS he reads off conspiracy sites on the Internet. Being un-ignored by PL is not a worthy goal.

So you are in fact nothing more than a troll justifying the actions of another troll.

And you think your insults have actual meaning? That they are not made irrelevant by your own blatant hypocrisy?

Again, I find this very funny.

Besides which, there are about five other blowhards in this thread and you haven't been going Hall Monitor on them.

(Anyway, seriously, ignoring MiB's trolling now. No new arguments have been posted; just a lot of crybabies with their ad-hominems.).

[A Man In Black]

Last edited by Zinegata on Tue Dec 20, 2011 7:58 am; edited 3 times in total

[Chamomile]

Zinegata, I know what a casus belli is, I'm thoroughly familiar with pretty much everything that happened in eastern Europe during '39, and I'm familiar with the Soviet-Polish War, albeit not intimately. I am not an expert on International Relations. I don't currently have any degrees at all, and the one I'm studying for is not even remotely related to International Relations.

That kind of thing (and your overuse of smilies) is probably what people are talking about when they say you're an irritating blowhard.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I think it's pretty much common knowledge at this point that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but actually following the trajectory of his political and social thought from an idealistic humanist to a twisted, racist, poor-hating monster is horrifying. It's like watching the Christmas Carol in reverse.