Revisionism about WWII and USSR

Hahahaha.... blame Stalin... why not... so many former German Generals felt it was easier to blame the winter and numbers and hitler for their failure too.

The reality is that Stalin probably suspected right up until the last minute that any evidence of a German attack was created by the British to try to fool the Soviets to fight the Germans too. At the time the British were pretty much on their own and desperate to get some real allies against the Germans and for them the two best options would be the Soviets and the Americans... you can bet your ass they were at the Soviets night and day telling them of the Germans plans to invade the Soviet Union.

The facts were that before the German invasion of Poland the Soviets asked Britain for an alliance with Poland against Germany and neither were interested and in fact they feared the Soviets more than they feared the Germans.

Nothing in their history would suggest any reason for Stalin to trust Britain at all.

The Soviet Military was in a state of transition from one model to a different model based on what they learned from combat in spain and in Finland.

Also they didn't want to put their forces on a war footing in case that provoked the Germans to attack in a preemptive self defence type manner fearing the Soviets were preparing to attack them.

And they had enormous defensive lines in the region that were dismantled because of various changes in planning that would have made the German invasion much harder.

There were things that would not have changed... most of their aircraft, while potent and powerful when they first entered service in the mid 1930s were now obsolete.. the Polikarpov I-15 and I-16 are obvious examples, and they had them in enormous numbers, though fortunately because they were out on the airfields instead of hidden away most were destroyed on the ground so more pilots survived that might otherwise have been killed in the air in inferior fighters... while they also had a lot of armour, again much of it was light tanks like T-26s which were very ordinary and were not designed for the modern tactics the German tanks used. The German tanks of the time didn't have better guns or better armour, what they had was tanks designed to operate in teams where the commander didn't have to load and fire the gun he could just be the commander and find targets and threats.
Of course they had good platforms too... Yak-1 and MiG-3 and T-34 and KV-1 but in small numbers to make a difference.

Another problem was a lack of anti armour ammunition... having a big powerful gun able to penetrate the armour of any enemy vehicle means nothing if you only have HE rounds which wont penetrate armour...

Marshall Zhukov knew what he was talking about. Besides, many able generals were executed in purges; Vlasov defected- his treason was caused in large measure by Stalin, & his ROA helped Germans fight partisans & other USSR allies.
The British intelligence fed Hitler disinformation on USSR mil. strength & succeeded in pushing Germany to invade it, esp. after Stalin gave her casus belli by taking over Bessarabia, threatening the Romanian oil fields essential to the Nazi war machine. The GB became like the Monkey King from the Chinese tale that survived on a tree while the 2 tigers were battling each other.  
That's also why R. Hess who knew too much had to be kept silent & was never released from the Tower of London.

NATO revisionism is trying to create the fake history that Nazi Germany invaded the USSR as a defensive measure. At the same
time they are moving away from the fake moral equivalence between the Nazis and the Soviets to singular evil and guilt of Russia.

Anyone with even a basic knowledge of history would see that the USSR showed no indication of any force build up for some war to
occupy the west. That is why the USSR was scrambling to build factories and increase production after Hitler invaded. If
the USSR was really some invasion threat, Hitler's armies would have not had the initial land grabbing success that they had. This
is basically physics since Soviet military resources would have been concentrated in the west already and would have had the magnitude
to grind any blitzkrieg to a halt. The Nazi blitzkrieg only works as a surprise attack against an unprepared victim. Revisionists would
have you believe that only the Nazis had mechanized warfare capability.

NATO is the moral and legal successor to the Reich since it is engaged in the same 1000 year drang nach osten that the self-anointed
guiding lights of humanity (recall the crusades) have been pursuing. A clear agenda to whitewash the Nazis is evidence of this.

Hitler didn't issue a new version of his Mein Kampf w/o Russia mentioned as an adversary & a source for new lebensraum.
The Soviet High Command & leadership knew that the war with Germany was coming regardless. They planned to liberate Europe after the Nazis defeated every1 else.
But they thought to wait for the right moment, around 1942-43, to do this, & that's why they were caught unprepared for defense on such a long front from the Baltic to the Black Sea.

Bulgarian revisionists claim that the USSR did not liberate them from the Nazis.

https://rusvesna.su/news/1567571401

Bulgaria was always a backstabber. Eat yanqui shit you swine.

kvs wrote:Bulgarian revisionists claim that the USSR did not liberate them from the Nazis.

https://rusvesna.su/news/1567571401

Bulgaria was always a backstabber.   Eat yanqui shit you swine.

They have been backstabbers since before the existence of Russia. Their wars against the Easter Roman Empire caused a mutual weakening of them and the Romans and allowed later the ottoman invasion of the Balkans.

Well I think it is ironic them and others comparing Nazism and Communism, because if you believe their interpretation they have tried it all... they started out peace loving democracies, and then evil Germany invaded and occupied them imposing Nazism on them for 3-5 years, and then evil liberating Stalin threw out the evil Nazis but replaced Nazism with evil Communism... until the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s and then they got a short taste of democracy again... Just like Russia did... but now they are part of NATO they have gone back to Nazism again and they are jealous that Russia gets real democracy and they don't.

But of course they blame Russia...

A detail that is routinely ignored and forgotten is that no western country was a real democracy back in the 1930s. This includes
Canada which brutally repressed union protests. The "democracy" that people in the west remember and boast only appeared after WWII
and was actually partly induced by the Cold War. The other reason was economic growth and development. The USSR was acting like a
competitor in a social system market and forced the west to actually implement some of the "human rights" it endlessly yammers about.

For sure none of the Balkan and Central European states like Bulgaria were anything one could call democracies. They had authoritarian
regimes even if there was pretense of democracy. Poland was one such de facto fascist state that loves to cry about its virginity all
the time.

This Bulgarian revisionism is grotesque since it does not matter how "democratic" these "victim" states were before WWII. The formerly
democratic Germany together with Hungary, Romania and Italy invaded the USSR in a war of racial extermination. What is more is that
this Axis had fellow travelers like Finland, elements in the UK and USA, and "fence sitter" Bulgaria.

Then we have all the phony tears about how bad it was under communism. Being an immigrant from the USSR, I know enough to say that
if you were not some political activist, life was not bad. In fact, in places like the Baltics and the Balkans (e.g. Bulgaria) there
was elevation from rural poverty. The USSR cannot be blamed for the nutjob leadership of Romania. Ceaucescu openly pursued an
independent policy was as courted by NATO. Maybe if the USSR actually ran these countries like colonies it would have selected
more sane leaders. But the USSR was not running any colonies and was not occupying these countries either. At worst it can be
accused of regime change in the wake of WWII.

Bulgaria was part of the Nazi alliance but "sat on the fence". Interesting how all the yaps with skeletons in their closets are now
posing as virtuous and indignant at Russia's "interference" by referring to history.

Nice to see the populations of these hater toilets rapidly declining. "Serves them right".

kvs wrote:

Bulgaria was part of the Nazi alliance but "sat on the fence".    Interesting how all the yaps with skeletons in their closets are now
posing as virtuous and indignant at Russia's "interference" by referring to history.

Nice to see the populations of these hater toilets rapidly declining.  "Serves them right".

It's seems the entirety of the Balkan/Aegean sea adjacent eurotrash nations are smoking from the same crack-pipe, that even includes Greece/Cyprus that just recently backstabbed Russia. In the case of Bulgaria, Russia was the country that liberated them from Ottoman control, and the only thing that prevented Northern Cyprus from officially becoming a Turkish territory (which the Obama admin was ironically trying to negotiate a Turkish annexation behind the scenes). Now that the Balkan states (which includes Macedonia) have sowed the seeds of betrayal and deceit, nothing will stop the Turks from reconquering those territories through stealth because Russian will never make the mistake (again) of jumping out the window to save these Balkan Quisling toilets from their own self-destruction.

The EU-rats in Bruxelles have declared that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was the cause of WWII. They have completely
buried the 1938 Munich Agreement where the UK, France, Poland and others gave Hitler fellatio and threw him Czechoslovakia
to use as he willed. Poland together with Germany invaded and divided Czechoslovakia.

The alleged "division of Europe" in the MR pact is pure fantasy fiction. Poland was not partitioned. It was the Poland annexed territories
of Belarus and Ukraine that were returned to their proper owners. Even the video above fails to identify this critical fact. It is
a NATO revisionist lie that Poland was split. If that were the case then the territories not seized by Poland in the early 1920s would
have been "grabbed" by the USSR. The Baltics served only as a territorial buffer and it was a fact that they were regime changed
before any "grab" by the USSR. If regime change is good for NATO, then it is good for the USSR. So GTFO, sanctimonious western
hypocrites.

Makes me doubt the history I have been taught all my life about the west from western sources...

Churchill stated that history would look favourably on him and his actions because he intended to write it...

What a self centred dirt bag he was.

GarryB wrote:Makes me doubt the history I have been taught all my life about the west from western sources...

Churchill stated that history would look favourably on him and his actions because he intended to write it...

What a self centred dirt bag he was.

No reason to doubt. Europe become the major technological, expansive power in the world even when other cultures were much more advanced primarily because of

(1) Ethical Monotheism, which set up basis for intra-human interaction, common value basis, set of rules and created trust within society, and led into abolition of slavery. It also laid basis on philosophy and judicial system and rule of law instead of despot’s whim

(2) Capitalism, which was result of abolition and prohibition of slavery, ethical system creating trust, and scientific Weltanschaung

(3) Roman jurisprudence, which set the basis for judicial system, constitution of the society and rule of law instead of despot’s whim.

Incidentally, these are the three most crucial leverage points on Donella Meadows’s Twelve Leverage Points’ theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_leverage_points

So why did other civilizations failed ?

Islamic civilization - Islamic countries never got rid of slavery. They had all the ingredients on the rise, but they did not realize how destructive thing slavery is.

China - The Chinese never separated philosophy from mysticism. They were excellent engineers, but they failed to make the connection between philosophy and mathematics, and that of mathematics, science and engineering. (Though this is fast changing now)

India - The Indian statehood was one of horrible division - that of castes. It basically paralyzed any evolution. As there was no way to improve your part in this world, why bother to try anything? Such lethargy led into a horrible divided society of filthy rich and dirt poor

The western civilization is a sham that depends on colonialism and infinite resource horizons for its existence. The NATO 1st world
countries and their European derived civilization are to this day leeching 3rd world countries via debt and export of value added
production. Capitalism is predicated on never ending growth which is inconsistent with a finite planet. That is why capitalist
ideologues are so rabid about not being regulated in their access to markets and resources. To them, the idea that the planet
is not an infinite toilet for pollution (e.g. all the carcinogens key to modern industry) and at the same time an infinite source
of oil, gas and minerals is heresy.

It is not justified to talk about this particular species of civilization as somehow having transcended all the previous ones and
never destined to collapse. All the signs of its collapse are there. This includes the degeneration of the populace into SJW
drones obsessed with sodomite depravity couched as tolerant and progressive. This degeneracy is actively supported by the
corporate elites. The miracle civilization is turning into an idiocracy. Just when exogenous threats are arranging to a perfect
storm.

The so-called west sees the world through the lens of economic rape and actual racism (regardless of all the PC yap). It has been
targeting Russia for centuries because it resists submission. Today, Russia retains more of the worthwhile aspects of European
civilization than does the EU. Where crypto-Trotskysit dreamers are imposing a totalitarian regime. Look at Sweden and see the pattern.

jhelb wrote:

GarryB wrote:Makes me doubt the history I have been taught all my life about the west from western sources...

Churchill stated that history would look favourably on him and his actions because he intended to write it...

What a self centred dirt bag he was.

No reason to doubt. Europe become the major technological, expansive power in the world even when other cultures were much more advanced primarily because of

(1) Ethical Monotheism, which set up basis for intra-human interaction, common value basis, set of rules and created trust within society, and led into abolition of slavery. It also laid basis on philosophy and judicial system and rule of law instead of despot’s whim
   
(2) Capitalism, which was result of abolition and prohibition of slavery, ethical system creating trust, and scientific Weltanschaung
   
(3) Roman jurisprudence, which set the basis for judicial system, constitution of the society and rule of law instead of despot’s whim.

Incidentally, these are the three most crucial leverage points on Donella Meadows’s Twelve Leverage Points’ theorem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_leverage_points

So why did other civilizations failed ?

Islamic civilization -  Islamic countries never got rid of slavery. They had all the ingredients on the rise, but they did not realize how destructive thing slavery is.

China -  The Chinese never separated philosophy from mysticism. They were excellent engineers, but they failed to make the connection between philosophy and mathematics, and that of mathematics, science and engineering. (Though this is fast changing now)

India -  The Indian statehood was one of horrible division - that of castes. It basically paralyzed any evolution. As there was no way to improve your part in this world, why bother to try anything? Such lethargy led into a horrible divided society of filthy rich and dirt poor

You can not say democracy experience absence of despotic whim as is not correct because in every society there is someone who makes decisions and some who does not and that despotic whim is the decision bearer as for instance in the western democracies where economy has superior position to society where society is regulated by economy rules based system (homoeconomicus) principles of economy established and changed as per their own will makes the despotic whim where some suffer and some thrive.

You can as per your belief negatively refer to mysticism still you are judging something you know nothing about because how could you explain difference between belief in some mystic form from any other belief like for instance belief that capitalism can sustain itself forever? Nor can the confirmation of one domain say anything about any other as for instance domain of science in part that is verifiable say anything about the mysticism (or negate it)where from for instance  China people can draw inspiration, will-power and endure to make great things including science as by mysticism defines everything that is unknown and not just mumbo jumbo

But most important of the reason which I value ineffective such reasoning that are mentioned in your post is because they can be referred only to some fixed position in time and than in reference with the others of that new time from which the accuser is than viewed. The essence of the problem is that while it correctly underlies the reasons of the fixed moment in time says nothing about the reasons about why it happened and by my opinion there lies the point in case. For instance while viewing from a fixed in time position reasons why one state failed and from another fixed position why some other state failed soon you will have all the reasons you can think of on your plate still those same reasons are root cause why those states also succeeded in some point of time as all of the mentioned ones where the great ones and than when you gather all reasons in the same basked you have nothing to work with. So I would rather dismiss them all as the principle you work with is wrong as the west now proclaims its end still having evaded all the "traps" of the past while taunting all the "right" values still we see it rise and demise at the time others are still plagued by "traps" of the past in one form or the other mentioned in the article. There is still no ultimate truth. There is no one size fits all system invented by people so only beliefs exist that it is this or that. Regressive religious belief systems stick to only few of thruts that have prove its value throughout history but dogmatic essence of them forbids further inquiry so they are dismissed.
I think that at some point in time every belief system that where and went on to succeed thought of it as the only one since every other up to that point failed. Aggressive through justice and existentially frightened part of such system will justify its expansion for the obvious reasons while disregarding as unimportant obvious moral dilemma whether to build upon belief system survival even when it is required on the expense of others and if yes how will you justify to the people difference between existentialism of the system and existentialism of the people (in most cases in a way that it is one and the same thing or by means of dependence because they have the best system) and if no risk falling into unknown of which possibility of oblivion gives one initiative by emotion of fear. Now that was that about dismissal part. Now on the affirmative part. I think that as some form of life we have throughout our history experienced only fundamentally different few systems of governance and because we can communicate and express only by means of words which in a sense makes a bottle neck I would rather advise taking numerous continuous small steps forward with lots of testings because in reality there can be infinite number of ways and optimising value of life around one (materiarialism) factor in importance superior to all others or few of them can infuriate Gods and enlight the phrase evil appears as good in the minds of those whom Gods seek to destroy meaning ultimate destruction or some equivalent like revolution that sets the belief system to square one while during the meantime people experience absence of security organized society provides.

That is why I believe no belief system can give themselves by themselves a right to judge any other belief system much less make aggressive processes toward it as it always leads to war as is fueled by irrational. Prove your belief system by battering time against it and the people will start rising its worth not by exploiting shiny moment in time by proclaiming "lead by example".

Lets see some facts of 1938 Munich Agreement

The Munich Agreement was an agreement concluded at Munich on 30 September 1938, by Nazi Germany, the United Kingdom, the French Third Republic, and the Kingdom of Italy. It provided "cession to Germany of the Sudeten German territory" of Czechoslovakia.Most of Europe celebrated the agreement, because it prevented the war threatened by Adolf Hitler by allowing Nazi Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland, a region of western Czechoslovakia inhabited by more than 3 million people, mainly German speakers. Hitler announced it was his last territorial claim in Europe, and the choice seemed to be between war and appeasement.

What Czech government says about western powers agreement on their loss of territory today?

An emergency meeting of the main European powers – not including Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union, an ally to both France and Czechoslovakia – took place in Munich, Germany, on 29–30 September 1938. An agreement was quickly reached on Hitler's terms. It was signed by the top leaders of Germany, France, Britain, and Italy. Militarily, the Sudetenland was of strategic importance to Czechoslovakia as most of its border defenses were situated there to protect against a German attack. The agreement between the four powers was signed on the backdrop of a low-intensity undeclared German-Czechoslovak war that had started on 17 September 1938. Meanwhile Poland moved its army units towards its common border with Czechoslovakia after 23 September 1938. Czechoslovakia yielded to French and British diplomatic pressure and agreed on 30 September to give up territory to Germany on Munich terms. Fearing the possible loss of Zaolzie to Germany, Poland issued an ultimatum for the return of Zaolzie, which Czechoslovakia accepted on 1 October.

what Polish governments says about this?? wasnt aggression their move against Czechoslovakia?

The Munich Agreement was soon followed by the First Vienna Award on 2 November 1938, separating largely Hungarian inhabited territories in southern Slovakia and southern Subcarpathian Rus' from Czechoslovakia, while Poland also annexed territories from Czechoslovakia in the North. In March 1939, the First Slovak Republic was proclaimed, and shortly by the creation of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia Germany took full control of the remaining Czech parts. As a result, Czechoslovakia had disappeared.

Czechoslovakia disappeared because of USSR???

The Soviet High Command & leadership knew that the war with Germany was coming regardless. They planned to liberate Europe after the Nazis defeated every1 else.
But they thought to wait for the right moment, around 1942-43, to do this, & that's why they were caught unprepared for defense on such a long front from the Baltic to the Black Sea.

Well if you make that date 1944 then the British and Americans implemented that plan perfectly... and still made the Soviets out to be the bad guys in the end.

Europe become the major technological, expansive power in the world even when other cultures were much more advanced primarily because of

The europeans used superior weapons to steal and kill anyone or any thing that got in their way...

Samuel P Huntington...

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion [..] but rather by its superiority in applying organised violence. Westerners often forget this fact; Non-Westerners never do.

In fact I would correct that and say westerners are blinded by their own propaganda that they are a force for good in the world, while non westerners are reminded every day of the damage the west has done.

(1) Ethical Monotheism, which set up basis for intra-human interaction, common value basis, set of rules and created trust within society, and led into abolition of slavery. It also laid basis on philosophy and judicial system and rule of law instead of despot’s whim

Europe created industrialised global slavery before they abolished it.

(2) Capitalism, which was result of abolition and prohibition of slavery, ethical system creating trust, and scientific Weltanschaung

Hahahahaha... the west didn't invent barter or trade or commerce... that has been around for thousands of years... the west just copied it as usual.

Islamic civilization - Islamic countries never got rid of slavery.

The west never got rid of slavery... they just rebranded it... don't you think it is strange that US companies need to produce their products in countries where there are no labour laws and minimum wage is not even a concept... 5 year old kids working machines making Nike boots for 50 cents a day... boots they will pay over $300 for in the US...

They had all the ingredients on the rise, but they did not realize how destructive thing slavery is.

Bollocks... slavery is critical to make modern consumerist America work... and the funny thing is that what will destroy the world is the other 7.5 billion humans consuming resources and energy at the rate the US has been doing for the last 40 years...

India - The Indian statehood was one of horrible division - that of castes. It basically paralyzed any evolution. As there was no way to improve your part in this world, why bother to try anything? Such lethargy led into a horrible divided society of filthy rich and dirt poor

Hahahaha... yeah, there is no social division in england... all men are truly equal... year right... but in the US there is racial inequality... which everyone focusses on, but the economic inequality is largely ignored and painted over by the very wealthy because they control the media and the government.

My western history books told me the Soviets invaded Poland and took half of Polish territory... it didn't mention that the territory it took it took back from the Poles who seized it in 1922 when the Russians were having their civil war.

Amusing but the tell is always that the victim is the victim and does nothing wrong and the aggressor is the aggressor because they are fundamentally bad.

Hitler was created by WWI... the Soviet Union was created by WWI... neither Russia nor the Soviets nor Germany started WWI.

The USSR was one of the all time biggest blowbacks. The Czar was deposed by the active interference of the USA, England, Germany and
others including the equivalent of today's George Soros. This regime change operation was supposed to carve up Russia into smaller
and more easily managed pieces through ethnic nationalism identity politics. So we had the concocted state of Ukraine and similar
pie carving in Central Asia. But instead of falling apart the USSR became a superpower.

WWII was engineered to destroy the "monster" the west created. The British were very active in Hitler's rise to power as were the
Americans. America basically shipped over whole factories that Hitler used to build up his army in violation of various treaties.
America continued to supply oil to the Reich basically throughout the war. Recall how Prescott Bush was a bankster to the Nazis.
One can't dismiss such details as irrelevant. They are central to explaining the observed events.

Too bad for the yanquis and their western partners, the USSR did not lose the war. So now we have revisionist sour grapes from the
precious west, where the fig leaf Molotov-Ribbentrop pact that resulted in the USSR shipping some grain and non-military goods to
Germany is invoked as the cause of WWII, while the brazen re-arming of Germany and supplying it with oil by the USA and other western
countries is utterly ignored. Russia grain created WWII, but US military industrial assistance created peace? Big Brother would be
proud of such newthink.

In case some smarmy NATO apologist thinks that political "carve up" protocols were more important. Consider Munich in 1938. Chamberlain
and other western bastions were busy appeasing and enabling Hitler's hunger for territorial expansion. The USSR was calling for a
policy of containment. So only the USSR was interested in stopping Hitler. And it was Hitler that started WWII in 1939. There was
no war started by the USSR in 1939. So the revisionist f*cks can't even get the chronology right. The MR pact was a successful
delaying tactic that bough the USSR nearly two years before the Germany attack. During this time it managed to increase its war
potential by 40%. But the revisionists would have you believe that Stalin was totally unaware of the impending attack by Hitler.
Pure, transparent BS fantasy fiction from professional Russia haters.

Viktor wrote:
But most important of the reason which I value ineffective such reasoning that are mentioned in your post is because they can be referred only to some fixed position in time and than in reference with the others of that new time from which the accuser is than viewed.

Viktor, Europe made progress even during the Dark Ages. Guess why - spread of Christianity. This led to centuries of technological innovation and foundation of Feudalism. They enabled the slow economic recovery.

But eastern religions like Hindooism for example divided society into castes. And since the caste system was so stringent it never allowed social, economical or technological progress in those countries. Consequently even today more than a thousand years later they still remain backward, unlike Europe.

Therefore, you may have noticed millions from those third world states like India, Africa migrate to Europe even today but the opposite never happens.

GarryB wrote:Hahahaha... yeah, there is no social division in england... all men are truly equal... year right... but in the US there is racial inequality... which everyone focusses on, but the economic inequality is largely ignored and painted over by the very wealthy because they control the media and the government

Yes there are social divisions in both UK and US. But those divisions are bare minimum. They do not divide society into castes like Hindooism did.

Majority of people in US, UK are Whites. They have always ensured tremendous growth for their country. Slavery is a thing of the past. People of color are far better of in the US than they would have been in countries like India, Middle Eastern countries, African countries from where their ancestors came to the US and UK.

Putin writes article about WWII

The Russian leader revealed his plans to write an article about the developments before the war during his annual end-of-year news conference in December 2019

MOSCOW, June 14. /TASS/. Russian President Vladimir Putin has written an article about World War II, presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov said on Sunday.

"Yes, the president has already written an article," he told TASS, adding that the president will decide when the article would be published later.

"We are waiting for his [Putin’s] decision when it [the article] will be published," he told TASS when asked whether the article could be published before the Victory Parade on June 24.

Peskov told TASS earlier that the president planned to write an article about the developments linked with World War II but its publication would depend on when key celebrations of the 75th anniversary of Victory over Nazism would be organized.

The Russian leader revealed his plans to write an article about the developments before the war during his annual end-of-year news conference in December 2019. He said the article would be based on archive materials. The president has been mentioning these developments, including the so-called Munich Betrayal, or Munich Agreement, and the role of individual European states, Poland in particular, in many of his recent speeches. Putin has repeatedly stressed the inadmissibility to falsify the WWII history.

The Victory Parade on Moscow’s Red Square that was to be held on May 9 but was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. On May 26, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that the parade would be held on June 24, the day when the first Victory Parade took place in Moscow 75 years ago.

https://tass.com/politics/1167499

They wrote today in LeMonde, that Putin doesnt blame Germany for WW II but rather the allies of WWI who pushed Germany in desperation.

I thought Russians hate Germany. Thats suprisingly for me...

Anyways what makes me wonder is how Putin wants politics be done in Europe and the world. For Europe he says the Great powers, UK, Germany, France and Russia should sit together and settle things.

I find it odd that he sees the small nations like Poland, Estonia and so on as mere distractions who cause nothing but conflict between the various powers

It's not in the Russian character to blame people for what their ancestors did. They don't hate modern Mongols, Tatars, Turks, Persians, Poles, French, British, Japanese, Hungarians, Italians, Romanians & Afghans for killing so many of their ancestors.
Russia had more wars with Swedes, Poles, Lithuanians, & English than with Germans. He can't really blame them since K. Marx & F. Engels were Germans whose works were taken as a Gospel by the Bolsheviks which Hitler was supposed to depose- in that sense, Germany & USSR can both be blamed for the war.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels

Putin is fluent in German & served in GDR a few years.
Russia has nothing to gain & a lot to lose by not having good relations with Germany.

Tsavo Lion wrote:It's not in the Russian character to blame people for what their ancestors did. They don't hate modern Mongols, Tatars, Turks, Persians, Poles, French, British, Japanese, Hungarians, Italians, Romanians & Afghans for killing so many of their ancestors.
Russia had more wars with Swedes, Poles, Lithuanians, & English than with Germans. He can't really blame them since K. Marx & F. Engels were Germans whose works were taken as a Gospel by the Bolsheviks which Hitler was supposed to depose- in that sense, Germany & USSR can both be blamed for the war.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Engels

Putin is fluent in German & served in GDR a few years.
Russia has nothing to gain & a lot to lose by not having good relations with Germany.

Do you agree with his idea to ignore Poland, Estonia and so on and that European issues should be solved between Germany, Russia, France and UK?

Yes, I do. Poland & the 3 Baltic states r pawns- instead of becoming/staying neutral like Austria & Sweden, they drew their lot with NATO & have no independent foreign policy, just like Georgia & Ukraine.
After all the wars in Europe, they should be thankful that they r still on the map.

Do you agree with his idea to ignore Poland, Estonia and so on and that European issues should be solved between Germany, Russia, France and UK?

Are you jocking ? Poland and Baltic states are directly working for Washington interests. Poland should be removed from EU. They will bring us in a limited nuclear war with Russia.

UK is no more in EU and not in the continental Europe. And they are just a US state when it comes to diplomacy.

France and Germany are the strongest EU states but very often do not agree on almost everything. That's why other EU countries should invest themselves more and Fr/Ger shoukd listen more to them.