the rewriting of history continues apace

[rone]

"I want you to keep focused on what you are doing here," [Condoleezza] Rice told the diplomats and troops who gathered in one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces. "This war came to us, not the other way around."

Fuck you, you lying hag.

Comments

[ewx.livejournal.com]

I think it's worth pointing out that the USSR and Nazi Germany started out on the same side in WWII.

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

Not saying I know this to be untrue, but in what way were they on the same side? From my understanding Hitler hated the Communists, socialists, and pretty much everything Liberal. Germany and Japan were united against Russia as early as 1936, in the Anti-Comintern Pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Comintern_Pact).

Please elaborate, because if I'm wrong about Hitler hating Commies I'd appreciate being corrected.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Invasion of Poland.

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

"Elaborate" means the exact opposite of "use the minimum number of words necessary". Perhaps you misunderstood me.

You're saying that Russia supported the invasion of one of its border countries by a hostile nation? That's like the US being happy with Iran invading Mexico. Source?

[ewx.livejournal.com]

Yes, Russia supported and indeed took part in the dismemberment of Poland. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was August 23rd 1939, the German invasion of Poland was 1st September, and the Russian invasion of the other half followed on the 17th September. The Baltic states were effectively occupied by Russia, with explicit German agreement, the same month. Russia and Germany only went to war in 1941, when Germany invaded; Stalin famously refused to believe the intelligence reports that this was imminent, thinking for some reason that Hitler was trustworthy.

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

WWII isn't my area of expertise, but as far as I can tell the pact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact) was a non-aggression pact between otherwise hostile countries. Stalin was still opposed to Hitler: he wasn't opposed to Hitler's invasion because he thought that war between rival capitalist countries would make it easier to turn them to communism. You might as well argue that England and Germany were also on the same side, since they also signed a non-agression pact in the previous year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement). (Of course the M-R agreement contained with secret spheres of influence defined in the event of its "political rearrangement", but both parties were still working cross-purposes and weren't on the same side. Stalin still wanted to see Germany and England destroy each other, and Hitler was still planning to attack Russia.)

To get back to our original Iraq discussion it's similar to the current "alliance" between Al Qaeda insurgents and Baathist remnants of Saddam's army. They were fighting each other before our invasion, they'll be fighting each other after we leave, but for the moment it serves their otherwise incompatible purposes to fight us.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

A "non-aggression" pact doesn't divide your neighbours up between you when you both invade one of them a few weeks later. Frankly the close timing indicates a degree of joint planning.

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

True, but it's joint planning between enemies. Enemies before the pact, enemies after. Your comparison to the current Baathist/Al Qaeda "alliance" is entirely valid. Former enemies are sharing objectives when it suits their interests, but they'll be back to fighting against each other once that objective is achieved.

Or maybe they won't, and Bush's legacy in Iraq will have been to permanently unite secular and religious arabs against America. I hope not.

[ewx.livejournal.com]

I don't recall drawing any comparison.

[tongodeon.livejournal.com]

Doh! I am wrong again. Previous to your comment (http://www.livejournal.com/users/ronebofh/289540.html?thread=1498116#t1498116) was saying that antagonistic Baathists / Al Qaeda relations could be compared to Russian / German relations. You put a finer point on it, adding the "also willing to make shaky alliances of convenience before backstabbing each other" factor, making the comparison even more valid.

Seriously though, I appreciate the history lesson. I wasn't interested in history lessons in high school, but actually seeing history unfold gives me new appreciation for similar events in the past.