USSR did not invade Poland on September 17, 1939

[Degeneve]

At least this is the conclusion reached by no less than Russia’s Supreme Court in a ruling of 1st September 2016.

The Court has fined with a penalty of 200,000 roubles Vladimir Luzgin, a Russian blogger for having written on his blog “The communists and Germany jointly invaded Poland, sparking off the Second World War. That is, communism and Nazism closely collaborated, yet for some reason they blame Bandera who was in a German concentration camp for declaring Ukrainian independence”.

The Court has now agreed that this paragraph constitutes “the public denial of the Nuremberg Trials and circulation of false information about the activities of the USSR during the years of the Second World War”.

This information has first been published by Human Rights in Ukraine and republished by other media afterwards including the Washington Post.

 

[ddt]

At least this is the conclusion reached by no less than Russia’s Supreme Court in a ruling of 1st September 2016.

The Court has fined with a penalty of 200,000 roubles Vladimir Luzgin, a Russian blogger for having written on his blog “The communists and Germany jointly invaded Poland, sparking off the Second World War. That is, communism and Nazism closely collaborated, yet for some reason they blame Bandera who was in a German concentration camp for declaring Ukrainian independence”.

The Court has now agreed that this paragraph constitutes “the public denial of the Nuremberg Trials and circulation of false information about the activities of the USSR during the years of the Second World War”.

This information has first been published by Human Rights in Ukraine and republished by other media afterwards including the Washington Post.

This decision is preposterous. Luzgin's lawyer has said he'll appeal the decision before the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg. I'm confident they'd overturn the decision, and then it'll be interesting to see if Russia joins the ranks of the Belarus and Kazakhstan governments, as well as elements within the UK Tory party which denounce the ECHR's authority. It's also preposterous that a university professor in history testified for the prosecution.

When you look at the blog page he was prosecuted for, it's easy to see the reason behind this. The blog page is titled "15 facts about Bandera", and it tries to whitewash his crimes. The whitewashing is already apparent in the quoted paragraph: at the time of the invasion of Poland by the Nazis and the Soviets, he was big buddies with the Nazis, and he and his OUN helped them during Barbarossa; it was only in 1942 that the Nazi no longer found him useful and locked him up in a concentration camp.

Robert Thurston in the Wilson Quarterly writes about him:

Bandera’s OUN-B was involved in a massacre of Jews in Lviv in the summer of 1941 and implicated again, acting both with and independent of the Galizien SS Division, in killing Poles, Russians, and Jews in 1943–45. How many died will never be determined.

Lwów (Ukrainian: Lviv; Russian: Lvov; German: Lemberg) was a largely Polish city in 1939, with a substantial Jewish minority and a small Ukrainian minority, though the surrounding countryside was largely Ukrainian in ethnic makeup, and lay in eastern Poland (now Ukraine). Bandera's OUN organized a pogrom on 30 June 1941, even before the Wehrmacht had captured the city, and gave the Wehrmacht lists of people to arrest, e.g. for the massacre among university professors.

Thurston continues:

In addition to the statues and museums dedicated to Bandera, the Yushchenko government issued a postage stamp in his honor in 2009 on the anniversary of his hundredth birthday. And as Yushchenko was leaving office in January 2010, he awarded Bandera the title “Hero of Ukraine.” Russian, Jewish, and Polish organizations, as well as the European Parliament, denounced this decision.

It's clear that this court decision is part of the propaganda war between Russia and Ukraine. As such, it's wrong, wrong, wrong. It would be nice though if the other side didn't equally revere a mass murder who'd be happy to murder any Pole, Russian or Jew in sight instead of some sympathetic figure.

 

[Degeneve]

It's clear that this court decision is part of the propaganda war between Russia and Ukraine. As such, it's wrong, wrong, wrong. It would be nice though if the other side didn't equally revere a mass murder who'd be happy to murder any Pole, Russian or Jew in sight instead of some sympathetic figure.

I can certainly share this view.

Unfortunatelly Ukraine is struggling with its past and seems to revere any person who resisted to the Soviet Union even if these persons had very discutable points of view (to say the least). Other former Soviet republics, like Lithuania, have the same issue.

I guess the past of these countries can explain this to some extend but I do not thinks it makes it right to revere people like Bandera or sometimes even worse.

 

[caveman1917]

it was only in 1942 that the Nazi no longer found him useful and locked him up in a concentration camp.

This would, in some sense, also constitute a white-washing. He was locked up in a special section which was more akin to house arrest than to what you'd think of with the term "concentration camp" - even though technically correct. He remained on good terms with his German Nazi captors, and two years later they were already collaborating again, resulting in his release.

Your use of the term "the Nazi" here is ambiguous, he was a Nazi - just not a German one. The OUN, a Ukrainian nationalist organization, had split over whether to go with Mussolini's type of fascism or Hitler's one. The main difference is that Hitler's includes outright genocidal and racist stuff. Bandera then became the leader of the "outright genocidal à la Hitler" faction, the OUN-B.

That stuff about the concentration camp tries to paint him as some sort of victim of Nazism, which could not be further from the truth.

It's clear that this court decision is part of the propaganda war between Russia and Ukraine.

Why? Over here in Belgium related laws, in this case against holocaust denial, are also enforced. Have you considered that maybe that which is part of the propaganda war is that this specific court decision got widely reported on? How many times does this law get enforced? After all, we are talking about a Nazi blog writing, well, Nazi stuff. As much as you may be for or against laws regulating that, you can't deny that such laws exist and get enforced without needing any "propaganda war".

 

[caveman1917]

The Court has now agreed that this paragraph constitutes “the public denial of the Nuremberg Trials and circulation of false information about the activities of the USSR during the years of the Second World War”.

Technically it is false information about the activities of the USSR during the years of WW2. Contrary to what the blog claims, the "communists" did not invade Poland on 1 September 1939 jointly with the Germans. They invaded on the 17th, 16 days later. Which leads me to wonder, why are you leaving out the highlighted part of the claim in the blog in your translation?:

"Communists and Germans jointly attacked Poland on 1 September 1939 setting off WW2"

Most of the rest of the blog article quite definitively constitutes denial of the Nuremberg Trials, but then who would be surprised about that? It would be strange for a Nazi blog not to feature stuff like that.

This information has first been published by Human Rights in Ukraine and republished by other media afterwards including the Washington Post.

Well, Nazis have human rights too, I guess.

 

[Degeneve]

Why? Over here in Belgium related laws, in this case against holocaust denial, are also enforced. Have you considered that maybe that which is part of the propaganda war is that this specific court decision got widely reported on? How many times does this law get enforced? After all, we are talking about a Nazi blog writing, well, Nazi stuff. As much as you may be for or against laws regulating that, you can't deny that such laws exist and get enforced without needing any "propaganda war".

The ruling of the IMT concerns mainly Germany and the main Nazi leaders. Bandera was not sued before the IMT and has not been sentenced by the IMT. I do therefore not see how denying his role during WW II could be viewd as "the public denial of the Nuremberg Trials".

I furthermore do not see in the blog any sentence denying the holocaust (but this might be due to Google translator).

I really have the feeling holocaust denial is not the point there.

 

[Degeneve]

Technically it is false information about the activities of the USSR during the years of WW2. Contrary to what the blog claims, the "communists" did not invade Poland on 1 September 1939 jointly with the Germans. They invaded on the 17th, 16 days later. Which leads me to wonder, why are you leaving out the highlighted part of the claim in the blog in your translation?:

"Communists and Germans jointly attacked Poland on 1 September 1939 setting off WW2"

Most of the rest of the blog article quite definitively constitutes denial of the Nuremberg Trials, but then who would be surprised about that? It would be strange for a Nazi blog not to feature stuff like that.

OK. He mentionned a wrong date for the invasion. Does this change the fact that the USSR invaded Poland with no reason ?

 

[caveman1917]

The ruling of the IMT concerns mainly Germany and the main Nazi leaders. Bandera was not sued before the IMT and has not been sentenced by the IMT. I do therefore not see how denying his role during WW II could be viewd as "the public denial of the Nuremberg Trials".

His role came up more than once in the Nuremberg trials.

I furthermore do not see in the blog any sentence denying the holocaust (but this might be due to Google translator).

I really have the feeling holocaust denial is not the point there.

I never said it was.

 

[caveman1917]

OK. He mentionned a wrong date for the invasion. Does this change the fact that the USSR invaded Poland with no reason ?

Sigh. Can you explain why you are leaving out that part in your translation of the quote? And why your thread title implies a different claim was made? And, most importantly, why it's apparently so important to you that a Nazi can write Nazi crap on a blog without getting into trouble with the law?

If I were to write a blog about how Hitler was an innocent peaceful man who just suffered under repression from the Jews, and if I were to get into trouble with the law about that (which I would), then I don't think my case would be spread widely by "human rights groups" and mainstream media.

 

[uke2se]

Sigh. Can you explain why you are leaving out that part in your translation of the quote? And why your thread title implies a different claim was made? And, most importantly, why it's apparently so important to you that a Nazi can write Nazi crap on a blog without getting into trouble with the law?

If I were to write a blog about how Hitler was an innocent peaceful man who just suffered under repression from the Jews, and if I were to get into trouble with the law about that (which I would), then I don't think my case would be spread widely by "human rights groups" and mainstream media.

What if you wrote a blog saying that the Nazis invaded Belgium on the 1st of June 1940, as opposed to the 10th of May? Would that get you into legal trouble?

That seems to be what happened in this case.

It's factual that Nazi Germany and the USSR jointly invaded Poland. That the blogger mistook the dates should not be reason to prosecute.

His whitewashing of a Nazi war criminal could be a different matter, depending on national legislation.

 

[Degeneve]

His role came up more than once in the Nuremberg trials.

If he was really sentenced for having written an apology of Bandera there is no real issue.

However if he was sentenced for having written that the USSR invaded Poland in September 1939 there is a real issue.

 

[ddt]

This would, in some sense, also constitute a white-washing. He was locked up in a special section which was more akin to house arrest than to what you'd think of with the term "concentration camp" - even though technically correct. He remained on good terms with his German Nazi captors, and two years later they were already collaborating again, resulting in his release.

Your use of the term "the Nazi" here is ambiguous, he was a Nazi - just not a German one. The OUN, a Ukrainian nationalist organization, had split over whether to go with Mussolini's type of fascism or Hitler's one. The main difference is that Hitler's includes outright genocidal and racist stuff. Bandera then became the leader of the "outright genocidal à la Hitler" faction, the OUN-B.

That stuff about the concentration camp tries to paint him as some sort of victim of Nazism, which could not be further from the truth.

Thank you for the addition.

Why? Over here in Belgium related laws, in this case against holocaust denial, are also enforced. Have you considered that maybe that which is part of the propaganda war is that this specific court decision got widely reported on? How many times does this law get enforced? After all, we are talking about a Nazi blog writing, well, Nazi stuff. As much as you may be for or against laws regulating that, you can't deny that such laws exist and get enforced without needing any "propaganda war".

I'm not aware what specific laws Russia has in this regards. As to this verdict, I sort-of have to rely on what the Human Rights in the Ukraine website reported on it, and it said that the part that "the communists and Germany jointly invaded Poland" was what led to the verdict, not all the whitewashing about Bandera. If you have another commentary on the verdict, feel free to link to it, or even to the verdict, but I doubt my rudimentary knowledge of Russian would help me to understand it.

Technically it is false information about the activities of the USSR during the years of WW2. Contrary to what the blog claims, the "communists" did not invade Poland on 1 September 1939 jointly with the Germans. They invaded on the 17th, 16 days later. Which leads me to wonder, why are you leaving out the highlighted part of the claim in the blog in your translation?:

"Communists and Germans jointly attacked Poland on 1 September 1939 setting off WW2"

That is a very technical defence. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, with its secret annex dividing Eastern Europe in German and Soviet influence spheres, was signed on 23 August, which divided Poland between the two and paved the way for the German invasion and subsequent Soviet invasion of the eastern half.

I'd be happy to defend Stalin in this particular case that it was the political smart thing to do all this after negotiations with the western powers had failed, but really, he did invade Poland and mopped up the rests of the Polish army which had evaded annihilation at German hands and had not escaped through the "Romanian bridgehead".

If he was really sentenced for having written an apology of Bandera there is no real issue.

However if he was sentenced for having written that the USSR invaded Poland in September 1939 there is a real issue.

This.

 

[caveman1917]

That seems to be what happened in this case.

Do you have evidence for this? And I don't mean some claims by a dubious human rights group which apparently likes to leave out key parts of quotes they translate, I mean the original court documents or something similar.

It's factual that Nazi Germany and the USSR jointly invaded Poland. That the blogger mistook the dates should not be reason to prosecute.

"mistook the dates" as if it's some sort of honest mistake. There is nothing factual about the USSR invading Poland on 1 september 1939, jointly with Germany, and sparking off WW2. War was declared by the allies on Germany in the days after the German invasion of Poland, but before the Soviet invasion of Poland. Saying that the USSR invaded Poland together with Germany on 1 sept and, together with Germany, sparked off WW2 is historical revisionism. Exactly of the sort you'd expect from Russian neo-Nazi bloggers.

 

[caveman1917]

I'm not aware what specific laws Russia has in this regards. As to this verdict, I sort-of have to rely on what the Human Rights in the Ukraine website reported on it, and it said that the part that "the communists and Germany jointly invaded Poland" was what led to the verdict, not all the whitewashing about Bandera. If you have another commentary on the verdict, feel free to link to it, or even to the verdict, but I doubt my rudimentary knowledge of Russian would help me to understand it.

I've been following the references from the OP (the KHPG one) backwards to their source, which seems to be a newspaper article here.

The article refers to the law against the "rehabilitation of Nazism" and that the blogger was sentenced under that law. It states that he was sentenced for writing in his article claims which contradict the facts established by the IMT as well as writing false claims regarding the activities of the USSR during WW2. At no point does it refer to the quote "jointly attacked Poland on 1 sept and sparked off WW2", it just refers to the blog article in general. That part about the quote seems to be an invention by KHPG which then also proceeded to leave out part of the quote in its translation.

That is a very technical defence. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, with its secret annex dividing Eastern Europe in German and Soviet influence spheres, was signed on 23 August, which divided Poland between the two and paved the way for the German invasion and subsequent Soviet invasion of the eastern half.

Here is the sequence of historical events in 1939:
1 sept: German invasion of Poland
3-10 sept: Allies declare war on Germany.
17 sept: USSR invasion of Poland.

To claim that the USSR invaded Poland on 1 sept and sparked off WW2 is simply false. And this doesn't really have anything to do with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. By that logic we might as well say that Lithuania sparked off WW2 since it did, after all, also get a piece of Poland out of it.

 

[caveman1917]

If he was really sentenced for having written an apology of Bandera there is no real issue.

However if he was sentenced for having written that the USSR invaded Poland in September 1939 there is a real issue.

He didn't write that, he wrote that the USSR invaded Poland on 1 September 1939 and sparked off WW2.

And it's far from clear that this is what he was convicted for in the first place. All we have so far is a claim by KHPG, an organization which seems adamant in presenting neo-Nazis who get prosecuted in Russia - for doing their WW2 revisionism game - as victims, changes quotes to support their case, and writes things such as that the claims in the blog article regarding Bandera's role are "contentious". There's nothing "contentious" about these claims regarding Bandera, his activities are well-established, it is about as "contentious" as the existence of the Holocaust being "contentious".

IIRC this isn't the first time KHPG comes up with stuff like this.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Here is the sequence of historical events in 1939:

23 August 1939: Germany and the USSR sign a treaty containing secret clauses agreeing on how several nations, including Poland, should be divided up between them.

1 sept: German invasion of Poland
3-10 sept: Allies declare war on Germany.
17 sept: USSR invasion of Poland.

Just added one more relevant event that you missed out.

To claim that the USSR invaded Poland on 1 sept and sparked off WW2 is simply false.

Yes, it is a false claim. However, it's an overbid to say that

And this doesn't really have anything to do with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

The fact that Germany and the USSR decided, eight days before the German invasion, how Poland was to be divided up between them makes it clear that the USSR was an accessory before the fact to Germany's action.

By that logic we might as well say that Lithuania sparked off WW2 since it did, after all, also get a piece of Poland out of it.

Except that Lithuania didn't get that as a result of a deal made in advance of the invasion.

Yes, it overstates the complicity of the USSR to claim that the invasions were simultaneous, as they were not. However, it understates the complicity of the USSR to say that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was irrelevant to the German invasion; it most obviously was a vital part of the planning to make sure Russia would benefit and hence not interfere.

Dave

 

[caveman1917]

Yes, it overstates the complicity of the USSR to claim that the invasions were simultaneous, as they were not.

That blog article does a lot more in overstating the complicity of the USSR than falsely claiming a wrong date for its invasion as well as falsely claiming that its invasion sparked off WW2. It also includes, among other things, claims that the massacres/progroms/... done by the UPA (Ukrainian nationalist paramilitary organization) in cooperation with Nazi Germany were really the work of Russians "in disguise", claims that the USSR and Germany continued to cooperate militarily during WW2 - such as by exchanging weapons.

 

[uke2se]

Do you have evidence for this? And I don't mean some claims by a dubious human rights group which apparently likes to leave out key parts of quotes they translate, I mean the original court documents or something similar.

No, which is why I said 'seems'. The sources we have to work with here say that that is why he was sentenced.

"mistook the dates" as if it's some sort of honest mistake. There is nothing factual about the USSR invading Poland on 1 september 1939, jointly with Germany, and sparking off WW2. War was declared by the allies on Germany in the days after the German invasion of Poland, but before the Soviet invasion of Poland. Saying that the USSR invaded Poland together with Germany on 1 sept and, together with Germany, sparked off WW2 is historical revisionism. Exactly of the sort you'd expect from Russian neo-Nazi bloggers.

The Soviet Union and Germany signed a pact on the 23 August that determined how to carve up Poland. Hitler invaded with Stalins blessing, and Russia subsequently invaded and took over their parts of the country. I'd say your objection is technically correct, but not substantial.

 

[Degeneve]

That blog article does a lot more in overstating the complicity of the USSR than falsely claiming a wrong date for its invasion as well as falsely claiming that its invasion sparked off WW2. It also includes, among other things, claims that the massacres/progroms/... done by the UPA (Ukrainian nationalist paramilitary organization) in cooperation with Nazi Germany were really the work of Russians "in disguise", claims that the USSR and Germany continued to cooperate militarily during WW2 - such as by exchanging weapons.

For the massacres done by the UP the claim is most probably false.

Furthermore there were no exchange of weapons or only on a small scale.

However there have been large supplies of wheat, coal and oil from Russia to nazi Germany from September 1939 to 19 June 1941, which helped Germany in its war again the European countries.

 

[dudalb]

For the massacres done by the UP the claim is most probably false.

Furthermore there were no exchange of weapons or only on a small scale.

However there have been large supplies of wheat, coal and oil from Russia to nazi Germany from September 1939 to 19 June 1941, which helped Germany in its war again the European countries.

Fact is, the Soviet Union during the years of the Nazi Soviet Pact was the most effective and useful ally that the Nazis ever had.

Sad to see that caveman has now become an apologist for Uncle Joe,who is neck in neck with Hitler for the title "Greatest Mass Murderer in History".