The parent post is not "making up" rationalizations nor do I see an attempt to justify Soviet repression.
The Soviets were victims... earlier, during World War II, when their territory was razed to the ground and their people targeted for total racial extermination, and also faced the brunt of that war -- the most destructive war ever -- and did most of the blood shedding. That has to leave a permanent mark in the national psyche. A lot of what they did afterwards was making sure nobody and no country was ever in the position to do that to them, again. They definitely were creating buffer zones to protect their homeland, and I believe most modern analyses agree on this.
This doesn't make them saints. Yes, they were repressive and brutal to satellites they believed felt out of line. But it's not "making up rationalizations", it's what actually happened, and it does explain things.
Also,
> Not expansionist at all
Most powers were expansionist in some way or the other during World War II and its immediate aftermath.
Most powers are expansionists in some way at any point of time in history. I think a quote from "Seventeen Moments of Spring" is quite appropriate here.
(the dialog is between a soviet spy and a german general while they are on a train. The war is almost over at this point):
General: States are like people. Static makes them sick. Borders suffocate them. They need movement, this is an axiom. Movement is war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T2s7WM4Uqk (no english subs)
World War II didn't start with the invasion of the Soviet Union, it started with Germany and the Soviet Union agreeing to dismember Poland, IIRC.
And then somehow or other there was a bit of unpleasantness with Finland, wasn't there?
Later, they also massively used Soviet slaves in order to fuel their war machine and factories. Without them, it would have been harder or impossible for Nazi Germany to continue the war. This is partly why they switched from "kill all Soviets on sight" to "extermination through labor".
Germany invaded because they needed resources that they couldn't get elsewhere. Letting them bootstrap that into the invasion, among all of the mistakes that were made in WWII, seems like it might have been one of the top ones.
None of this detracts from the fact the Soviet Union was ome of the biggest victims in WW2 and that they were traumatized by this.
The Soviet Union was a disaster, and certainly the they did a lot of things to other countries that they shouldn't have. But they were a clear victim in WWII; the amount of blood they shed was absolutely unreal.
It also misrepresents the nature of the relationship between the two powers. Germany was gearing for war against the Soviet Union, it was the sine qua non of Hitler's plan, which he even detailed in writing years before.
Have you any comments to make about these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Credit_A...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Commerci...
"there is one common element in the ideology of Germany, Italy and the Soviet Union: opposition to the capitalist democracies"
>It also misrepresents the nature of the relationship between the two powers.
How? As you say, Germany was gearing for war, how does that contradict the Soviet Union supplying them with the means?
Because that's the subthread you're replying to.
The USSR was traumatized by war with Nazi Germany and it definitely informed their following geopolitical decisions, so that their territory would never be invaded again.
It seems you're trying to contest this with some weird tangent.
No, I don't endorse that statement.
The leaders of the USSR, like Stalin, enabled the Nazis to invade and kill millions of people (perhaps millions of non-Russians too) by sending them raw materials prior to the attack. That's not a claim about intent, or victimhood or a personified USSR.
If that is/had been identified as the mistake, it wouldn't seem so logical to build an empire for protection. That's why this is not a tangent.
Good to know!
> The leaders of the USSR, like Stalin, enabled the Nazis to invade and kill millions of people (perhaps millions of non-Russians too) by sending them raw materials prior to the attack.
Agreed. However, context matters: the trade immediately helped Nazi Germany's war effort, which in turn allowed them to execute operation Barbarossa. At the same time, the Soviet Union was desperately in need of modernizing their army and they didn't have many allies in a situation to assist them; out of this collaboration with Nazi Germany came the advanced tank designs they later used to beat the Germans. Still, not losing millions of people to the war would have been better.
The Soviets knew they were playing with fire. Hitler never hid his plans for the Soviet Union; it was the sine qua non of Nazi Germany, where most of its "lebensraum" would be acquired. But what else could they do? We are playing armchair diplomats/generals here. Remember the world was wildly different back then; empires still existed and Churchill still wanted a British Empire. Alliances that make no sense now might have made more sense then.
> If that is/had been identified as the mistake, it wouldn't seem so logical to build an empire for protection.
I disagree. The Soviet Union had more enemies, of which Nazi Germany turned out to be the most immediate one. Let's remember the West initially considered letting Germany and the Soviet Union damage each other, and saw Germany as a valuable assert against communism. They even toyed briefly with allying with the remnants of the Wehrmacht to defeat the Soviet Union after WWII! That this was even considered, albeit briefly and by few people, shows the Soviet Union was at least partly right to be paranoid.
>But they were a clear victim in WWII; the amount of blood they shed was absolutely unreal.
If I've understood your intent correctly, you probably want "...the amount of their blood that was shed...". My understanding of "blood they shed was absolutely unreal" would be that they were killing others in massive amounts.
If 'IIRC' then you should at least check Wikipedia on events what preceded Molotov-Ribbentrop. It surely wasn't a a great sunny day when Molotov called Ribbentrop and said "Hey, Josha! I have a great idea this morning! Let's split Poland!"
If you extend the starting date to maybe autumn 1918 (Polish–Soviet War, Poland's invasion while Russia is in the state of civil war), then it can be considered as less bad, with some justifications that are not out of the historical norm.
Though that Polish invasion from 1918 can be considered as preemptive (defence from evil bolsheviks, trying to recover pre-1772 borders).
Though that Soviet invasion from 1939 can be considered as preemptive (defence from evil capitalists and fascists, trying to restore pre-1921 borders).
Though it is hard to do similar mental gymnastics with relation to invasion of Finland.
Well, again context helps (like you showed in the other parts of your comment). Note my comment does not imply the Soviet Union was right in waging war against Finland:
From Wikipedia's article on the Winter War:
> "Joseph Stalin regarded it a disappointment that the Soviet Union could not halt the Finnish revolution. He thought that the pro-Finland movement in Karelia posed a direct threat to Leningrad and that the area and defences of Finland could be used to invade the Soviet Union or restrict fleet movements. During Stalin's rule, Soviet propaganda painted Finland's leadership as a "vicious and reactionary fascist clique"
Again, Stalin's fear and paranoia about other powers invading its territory, which in turn mandated creating buffer or safe zones around the Soviet Union. It's not outlandish, given the USSR's many actual enemies and their history of interference within Russian.
His fears partially proved true (with some degree of self-fulfilling prophecy) when Finland played a (limited) role in assisting the Germans with Barbarossa and the Siege of Leningrad.
Context - yes, it helps. Though it is hard (impossible?) to construct an encompassing enough context for complex historical events. And it is sometimes too easy to use partial contexts to to help people to perceive events in the right way.
I did not read your comment as telling that invasion of Finland was right. I do consider fear and paranoia existing at that time about external powers as justified.
On "Appeasement" wikipedia page you can read about perception that "fascism was a useful form of anti-communism" held by many.
And as far as I know, Soviet Union was preparing to wage a large war in Europe (just not in 1941).
Part about mental gymnastics - well, that was about what I wrote about justifications. I do not consider it right to justify invasions. Especially when I'm talking about justifications used by a country I was born in / lived almost all my life. But I felt a need to say something in defence of an opinion containing more nuance (yours).
I consider as bad a lot of things that were happening at that time (at any time in history?).
Now that I looking at the chain of the messages - it looks like I've tried to defend (in my own strange way) a comment that was trying to defend another comment =)
Why not start counting WWII from the Munich Agreement [0] of September 1938 when Britain and France gave Hitler a go ahead to occupy Czechoslovakia? This capitulation by Western powers greatly expanded hitler's appetite craving for more.