Putin Defends Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact in Press Conference with Merkel

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
The original plan for the new Israel was to be in the Crimea and supposedly agreed to by the Rothschild's ,Stalin ,and the US president . Hitler may have also been part of the conversation but seeing Germany was going to be the bigger piece of pie the cut throats did their deed .

This was not policy by the British and the US (not sure why you've inserted Rosthchild), but it is recorded that Stalin - who was busily depopulating Crimea through a policy of ethnic cleansing, may have entertained formally chucking his Jews in that direction as policy. However, instead Stalin used Crimea as a way to crack down on Jews.

Going back to OP - the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was an agreement for Soviet Russian and Nazi Germany to calve up eastern Europe. Putin can try to re-write history, but the fact is that the policy was carried out.

Un-peaceful Russia 1939-1940 and invader of lands with Nazi complicity. Victim of Nazi aggression from 22 June 1941.

> 23 August 1939 - Pact signed between Soviets and Nazi's
> 1 Sept 1939 - Nazi's invade Poland starting WW2
> 17 Sept 1939 - Soviets invade eastern Poland and later Germans and Russians hold a joint victory parade.
> 24 Sept 1939 - Soviets bully Estonia into accepting Soviet military occupation.
> 5 Oct 1939 - Soviets bully Latvia into accepting Soviet military occupation.
> November 1939 - Soviets start invasion of Finland
> June 1940 - Romania forced to cede large block of territory known as Bessarabia under threat of invasion from the Soviets.
> June 1940 - Soviets annex Lithuania

a reply to: paraphi

> 23 August 1939 - Pact signed between Soviets and Nazi's
> 1 Sept 1939 - Nazi's invade Poland starting WW2
> 17 Sept 1939 - Soviets invade eastern Poland and later Germans and Russians hold a joint victory parade.
> 24 Sept 1939 - Soviets bully Estonia into accepting Soviet military occupation.
> 5 Oct 1939 - Soviets bully Latvia into accepting Soviet military occupation.
> November 1939 - Soviets start invasion of Finland
> June 1940 - Romania forced to cede large block of territory known as Bessarabia under threat of invasion from the Soviets.
> June 1940 - Soviets annex Lithuania

Can you start your analysis from Munich Pact first , may be ?

And tell my Britain didn't declared war on USSR as it did against Germany ?

a reply to: kitzik

One gets the impression that for some reason or reasons the accuracy of what was and is being adopted can only be understood as corruption of the truth . As if things were not confusing enough about geopolitical reasons we seem to get a narrative that contradicts it's self based on earlier accounts deleted later on .

Isaac *Abrabanel commenting on Genesis 10:3 equates the "Qasari" in "Ashkenaz" with Gazaria, "below" (south of) the Azov Sea.

In the 16th to 17th centuries "Gazaria" and "Crimea" were synonymous. This late usage led the Russian historian N.M. Karamzin (1816) to regard the Crimea as the ultimate domain of the Khazar kings, lost in 1016. After C.M.Y. Fraehn (1822) had dated the downfall of the Caspian Khazars to 969, the period 969-1016 was left for the duration of the mythical Crimean kingdom, considered henceforth as Jewish. The early draft of H. *Graetz's "History of the Jews" (1860) included the history of the kingdom, written according to the manuscript discoveries claimed by the Karaite collector A. *Firkovich.

After these claims had been attacked, the story was partly, but mechanically, deleted: in the late version the Crimean kingdom has a beginning but no end (Eng. ed., 3 (1949), 222ff.). Graetz's original coherent description continued to influence Jewish historians, notably S. *Dubnow (History of the Jews in Russia and Poland, 1 (1916), 28ff.). Firkovich also is the source of the idea that the Crimea was the cultural center which influenced the conversion of the Khazar royalty to Judaism, and that the Crimean Karaites were descended from ancient Israelite settlers and Khazar converts.

The rival Karaite historian M. Sultanski (d. 1862) regarded the Crimean Karaites as purely medieval Jewish immigrants from various parts, while later Karaite authors consider that they were basically Khazars-Turks. The Rabbanite *Krimchaks (i.e., "Crimeans") were also sometimes considered basically Khazars. All these views are founded on the late meaning of "Gazaria". Foreign Karaites (contrary to Rabbanites) in Khazar times never claimed that the Khazars had converted to Judaism and sometimes displayed intense hatred toward them (even expecting them to fight the Messiah in Erez Israel): the sect was then seeking to uphold the Palestinian descent of the Jews and Judaism.

www.hist-chron.com...

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You might like to read these links to give you a flavor of what was going on years before the final decision. en.wikipedia.org...

tabletmag.com...

www.jta.org...

Stalin certainly did his best to relocate as many Jews as possible to Siberia.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

So... instead of annexing Crimea, shouldn't Putin have given it to Israel?

a reply to: Xcathdra

"They say: Oh, this is so bad. But what's so bad about it if the Soviet Union did not want to go to war? What's so bad about it?"

There is nothing bad about this pact, Hitler never intended to keep it. Ask the 20 mil. dead Russians how they feel about this. But we shouldn't blaim Vlad the Impaler for the doings of this little postcard-painter, should we?

Better ask Merkel why she covered herself in silence while ukrainian right-wing-forces spit on her Minsk-agreement.

originally posted by: kitzik
Can you start your analysis from Munich Pact first , may be ?
And tell my Britain didn't declared war on USSR as it did against Germany ?

The OP is about the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact and not any previous agreements, such as the Munich Pact, where there is no attempt to reinterpret appeasement of Hitler. Great Britain and France thought that the Munich Pact would satiate Hitler and avert war. The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact included an agreement for both Soviet Russian and Nazi Germany to benefit from invading the countries between them. It was a treaty of mutual belligerence.

As to why Great Britain and France did not declare war on Soviet Russia when they invaded eastern Poland, Finland and everywhere else. Well, it boils down to the fact that Nazi Germany breached the terms of the Munich Pact.

I know the Soviets suffered grievously at the hands of the Nazi's, but history must remember that they were also aggressors in WW2 and caused immense suffering and brutality in the lands the invaded and occupied, and then re-invaded and re-occupied.

Putin cannot justify the Pact with Hitler as something benign.

a reply to: DJW001

So... instead of annexing Crimea, shouldn't Putin have given it to Israel?

If you mean Zionist Israel then NO . I think there may be a few Jews that would agree with me too .

Stalin certainly did his best to relocate as many Jews as possible to Siberia.

But some Jews from the central "Soviet Union" seem to have been allowed to settle in the Crimea after 1945:

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: DJW001

If you mean Zionist Israel then NO . I think there may be a few Jews that would agree with me too .

I think it strange that you took my joke seriously. But then, you seem to take 19th Century nationalistic "ethnography" seriously, too. Incidentally, your posts have been way off topic, so I won't be engaging in them any more.

The fact is, Putin has been rewriting history to further his revanchist agenda

.

a reply to: DJW001

I am not sure what is happening with my posts . Much of the text is missing and I went back in to post a link to my post www.hist-chron.com...

"But some Jews from the central "Soviet Union" seem to have been allowed to settle in the Crimea after 1945:

originally posted by: Ritter327
a reply to: paraphi

Consider for a moment what you people are saying

You are now trying to blame Russia for World War 2

You guys are being revisionists here

RR

No, the facts of the matter is that Stalin and Hitler allied in the beginning so they could each have a land grab. This has not changed at all. This is a historical fact. The revisionism comes in where Stalin's culpability in helping start the war was swept under the rug because he eventually became our "ally" and the narrative of the Soviets being "victims" when they were not was needed at the time.

This did happen as the Katyn forest massacre happened.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I am having the same problem. The board's software will edit out quotes within quotes, and the structure of your posts are too complicated.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

The same reason Putin said nothing as right wing separatists resumed their assault on Ukrainian held territories. The chief difference is that Merkel has little or no influence on the Ukrainain volunteer brigades, whereas Putin can threaten to disown the "breakaway republics." If the bogus Narodni Republics are not eventually "reunited" with Mother Russia, they will shrivel up and die.

a reply to: TorinoFer

`

The Moscow times despite the name is a western owned institution, and are infamous for anti Putin propaganda.

In this case they report watered down out of context kind of information that western dumbed down masses like to consume.

Usually, when one attacks the messenger like this, they provide a link to a trusted source that refutes the alleged propaganda. How about this?

"The Soviet Union made every effort to set up a system of collective security against the Nazi threat, to forge an anti-Hitler coalition in Europe, but all those attempts fell through," Putin said.
"Some politicians believed that the war was unavoidable. After his colleague [Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain] arrived in London with that piece of paper and declared the accord with the Germans signaled ‘peace for our time’, [Winston] Churchill said that the war was now imminent. So when the Soviet Union realized it was being left alone to face Nazi Germany, it took steps to avoid a head-on confrontation and signed the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact."

Vicious propaganda site.

Okay Putinistas, all together now:

"Neville Chamberlain started the Great Patriotic War by signing the Munich Agreement... Neville Chamberlain started the Great Patriotic War by signing the Munich Agreement... Neville Chamberlain started the Great Patriotic War by signing the Munich Agreement..."

"The Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was an act of selfless courage... the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was an act of selfless courage... the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was an act of selfless courage...."

a reply to: DJW001

The same reason Putin said nothing as right wing separatists resumed their assault on Ukrainian held territories.

Maybe just counterfire? Even the OSCE had to admit ukrainian shelling. Who bombed whole cities to ashes just because some folkes demanded more rights again? Putin & his Putinistas I guess?
Propagandalf yourself, Syre.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: DJW001

The same reason Putin said nothing as right wing separatists resumed their assault on Ukrainian held territories.

Maybe just counterfire? Even the OSCE had to admit ukrainian shelling. Who bombed whole cities to ashes just because some folkes demanded more rights again? Putin & his Putinistas I guess?
Propagandalf yourself, Syre.

Is the title of this thread "who broke the ceasefire first?" And yes, the Russian army pulverized whole towns in Chechniya just because they demanded more rights. Do you have an opinion as to why on Earth Putin would praise the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact in front of the Current Chancellor of Germany? Can you understand why Merkel thinks Putin may be losing it? Was he trying to spook Poland, which has begun to mobilize its militia?

a reply to: DJW001

Do you have an opinion as to why on Earth Putin would praise the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact in front of the Current Chancellor of Germany?

A somehow adequate answer to the fact, that Europe keeps financing this "Anti-Terror-Operation" with an estimated number of 50K deaths so far, don't ya think? Lets call it what it is: a right-wing-extremist uprising in Russias frontyard. And I would take offense in any support for their cause as well, sure shot.

I think there are many things written between the lines of this little statement. He sharped her senses with a little provocation and then he offered a solution to a somehow muddled situation. Every reference to Nazi-Germany has to be considered a plain provocation, he surely knows how to pull the strings on Mutti. There is no way she could sell another step of silly sanctions and Vlad knows that Europe is strongly devided on this matter.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Britguy

Good for you! It's a rare find on ATS to see somebody who doesn't believe the official story on everything! You, sir, are truly a diamond amongst the rocks.

As evidenced by your need to jump right into the attacks on intellect when somebody dares to utter terms you don't care for. But apparently can't come up with anything to dispel the usage of.

Guess that explains the need to jump straight to offering commentary on a personal level, eh?

Intellectual Goliath indeed

Says the poster that has made names for and labelled any other poster that does not agree with them?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

A somehow adequate answer to the fact, that Europe keeps financing this "Anti-Terror-Operation" with an estimated number of 50K deaths so far, don't ya think? Lets call it what it is: a right-wing-extremist uprising in Russias frontyard. And I would take offense in any support for their cause as well, sure shot.

But Putin loves right wing extremists! The problem is that the legitimately elected government in Kyiv does not want to remain a Russian vassal; that's why Putin has fomented a right wing extremist secessionist movement.

I think there are many things written between the lines of this little statement. He sharped her senses with a little provocation and then he offered a solution to a somehow muddled situation. Every reference to Nazi-Germany has to be considered a plain provocation, he surely knows how to pull the strings on Mutti. There is no way she could sell another step of silly sanctions and Vlad knows that Europe is strongly devided on this matter.

What solution did he provide? All he did was say "you are all ganging up on me, like you did before." His statement made absolutely no sense. All he did was remind everyone that Russia cannot be counted on to honor its treaties.

a reply to: DJW001

But Putin loves right wing extremists! The problem is that the legitimately elected government in Kyiv does not want to remain a Russian vassal; that's why Putin has fomented a right wing extremist secessionist movement.

Rubbish. Putin is just head of the state, I don't see him launching demonstrations for warcriminals like Bandera, Klitschko did so. In Kiew.

What solution did he provide? All he did was say "you are all ganging up on me, like you did before." His statement made absolutely no sense. All he did was remind everyone that Russia cannot be counted on to honor its treaties.

He offered Germany to take part in a transasian trade-deal, but our politicans decided to mess with some sanctions and the illegal TTIP-deal instead. And now tell me which treaties Russia canceled in it's long history. Actually you didn't realise that Putin is a politican with his own history regarding Germany, he spoke in the Bundestag years ago and intended to strengthen the partnership between our nations. This talk of historical deals is a talk about opportunities in times of peril. But as long you prefer to keep your prejudices you wouldn't be able to make sense out of this statement at all.