Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Lets not pretend the SU was very innocent in WW2 after having made a deal with Hitler to conquer Poland and acquiring the Baltics and go to war with Finland.
What deal are you talking about? SU was preparing for war with the Polish all the way 1920s 30s. Obviously, the fall of Poland was caused by betrayal of Britain. And what did Poland do when Germany attacked Czechoslovakia? Led the troops there to take a piece of territory. Do we call Polish deal with Hitler? We can, technically. But it is not necessary., because Poland and Germany were obviouse enemies. So it is not necessary to say that the USSR had business with Hitler. About France. How many troops occupied/Vici France provided for Hitler? More than Free France army had troops. it's good that the people of Italy have woken up and left fascism. But the Nazis did not. decided to destroy their own country and die in Berlin. Even after defeat many werent changed their ideas.
Even Russia went through that phase before the SU toned it down a bit.
They are still there. Generating a lot of stupidity like "Slavs were arians, who arrived in vimanas and lived in Hyderborea" and then what happen? yeah, of source jew masons came and destroyed their paradise. Or "history is false, there were Great Tartaria with real arians, but destroyed by Nuclear bombs in 1800s". It's not even funny, just dumb. Or "If there will be tsar, he will kill all jews and everything will be cool, we all wil became nobles". Same idea as mentioned before. They dont' think about 85% of peasant. They think they will be in small % of nobles. Or ideas of returning to paganism. But hey, why there is a swastika? It's not swastika, it's ancient Kolovrat solar symbol! they say. Yes of course.
nothing compared to the German AFD party actually being ran by people who say they should be proud of the Wehrmacht again, which is an insane can of worms.
If they say so, then it will be a real war soon or later. and as usual, the profit from this won will be to the same imperialists. but what will get those who went to war? "pride". it's free. But I think in current Germany there are smart people who understand that it's easier to remove fascists than to go to war for "proud". It's not even acient war for simple looting.
Communism had their own ideals to die for in war, instead of nationalism it was for example dying for the world revolution
high goals such as the world revolution for the sake of the common good - this is too difficult for a lot of people. it's much easier to promise him something like "go fight for the great Ukraine and the European visa." By the way, Europe seems to have refused a visa to Ukrainians. but they fought and died for it.
. the war between the SU and Poland in the 1920's.
This is the consequences of not fully understanding the situation. Poland was perceived as an artificial formation imposed by the anti-Bolshevik Treaty of Versailles, and on this territory the oppressed Poles and Byelorussians live, who will be happy about the war. It turned out - they are not happy to see Bolsheviks. By the way, if they had won, they could have supported the Communists comrades in Germany and nazis would not came power But this is an alternative story and fantasy. I do not know maybe the place of "the worst" would have been occupied by Stalin. in history. then, it came to 1939. By the way, Churchill supported the actions of the USSR then. Well, it's not good. Somehow it happened. Well, Finland. And why interfere with the strengthening of the defense of the USSR against Germany? You or neutral, then be neutral. Once he began to cooperate with Germany, well, what else to expect.
The problem as you point out is that authoritarian governments can also not care about improving the situation of its population. Overall people would prefer to live in democracies, as they tend to have more benefits both individually and for society on the whole.
We in Russia have a democratic government. Is it beneficial for government to improve people's lives? What for? Is it profitable for them to develop their economies? It is more like they should. But they do not. And what can people do? Nothing. Business is not profitable. Just get out of here and get work in "normal" capitalist countries.
Russia is still interesting to cooperate with for many countries. Russia together with China counterbalance the West in the UN and often find common ground there.
It is more like a struggle for existence than counterbalance. At what our oligarchy do not care what will happen to the country, if the resistance is finally broken.
For example, in Scandinavia there is somwthing like socialism. It because of the small population and the availability of resources. And these resources are not captured by foreign capital. And their government is not greedy (which is strange )
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/12/10 11:41:03
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
Lets not pretend the SU was very innocent in WW2 after having made a deal with Hitler to conquer Poland and acquiring the Baltics and go to war with Finland.
What deal are you talking about? SU was preparing for war with the Polish all the way 1920s 30s. Obviously, the fall of Poland was caused by betrayal of Britain. And what did Poland do when Germany attacked Czechoslovakia? Led the troops there to take a piece of territory. Do we call Polish deal with Hitler? We can, technically. But it is not necessary., because Poland and Germany were obviouse enemies. So it is not necessary to say that the USSR had business with Hitler. About France. How many troops occupied/Vici France provided for Hitler? More than Free France army had troops. it's good that the people of Italy have woken up and left fascism. But the Nazis did not. decided to destroy their own country and die in Berlin. Even after defeat many werent changed their ideas.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? The fall of Poland was in no way caused by betrayal by Britain. It was caused by the invasion of Stalin and Hitler. Yes, Poland wasn't such a nice country during the partition of Czechoslovakia. But neither was the SU for the partition of Poland. Does that imply the SU deserved what happened in any way? No, and neither does it do that for Poland. But the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact allowed Hitler to wage a good part of the Second World War with a secure flank and strategic resources for the Nazi war effort provided by the Soviets. It is really necessary to say that, because beyond the support to the Nazi war machines that pact with Hitler allowed Stalin to annex part of Poland, the Baltics, Bessarabia and war with Finland.
Vichy France provided no troops for Hitler. Vichy French troops stayed in the parts of French territory that was still in control by Vichy. The troops aso were useless because when push came to shove Hitler took over from Vichy France and had German troops occupy it to defend the southern flank of Europe. The Nazis not leaving fascism makes sense with them being the actual Nazis and all that. It was easier for them to maintain the grip on power than it was for Mussolini when half his country had fallen. Besides, the thorough defeat of Nazism inside Germany was seen as important to stop another stab in the back myth from emerging like after WW1.
Even Russia went through that phase before the SU toned it down a bit.
They are still there. Generating a lot of stupidity like "Slavs were arians, who arrived in vimanas and lived in Hyderborea" and then what happen? yeah, of source jew masons came and destroyed their paradise. Or "history is false, there were Great Tartaria with real arians, but destroyed by Nuclear bombs in 1800s". It's not even funny, just dumb. Or "If there will be tsar, he will kill all jews and everything will be cool, we all wil became nobles". Same idea as mentioned before. They dont' think about 85% of peasant. They think they will be in small % of nobles. Or ideas of returning to paganism. But hey, why there is a swastika? It's not swastika, it's ancient Kolovrat solar symbol! they say. Yes of course.
Fascist supporters exist in every country and they are real scumbags, but sadly some people are just terrible people. Those are some very strange beliefs though, ridiculous
nothing compared to the German AFD party actually being ran by people who say they should be proud of the Wehrmacht again, which is an insane can of worms.
If they say so, then it will be a real war soon or later. and as usual, the profit from this won will be to the same imperialists. but what will get those who went to war? "pride". it's free. But I think in current Germany there are smart people who understand that it's easier to remove fascists than to go to war for "proud". It's not even acient war for simple looting.
No, there won't be war soon. These are the extreme elements in the AfD and most of their voters wouldn't agree with that part, beyond the party not having the electoral support to get really big. Also Germany is in no condition to go to war with Russia. Its army is not big enough, Russia has nukes and Germany is heavily tied up in European and American political and defensive ties. Any potential war between Russia and just Germany will be in a far and freaky future.
Communism had their own ideals to die for in war, instead of nationalism it was for example dying for the world revolution
high goals such as the world revolution for the sake of the common good - this is too difficult for a lot of people. it's much easier to promise him something like "go fight for the great Ukraine and the European visa." By the way, Europe seems to have refused a visa to Ukrainians. but they fought and died for it.
The 'common good' has led to countless deaths. Like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Almost all communist victims died for the 'common good'. Its no better reason to go to war over than nationalism, its just delusional that they used to think so. EU relations with Ukraine are complicated and messy to say the least, especially with a civil war in the country. The people at Maidan protested for closer ties with the EU, but everything that happened after has made it more difficult.
. the war between the SU and Poland in the 1920's.
This is the consequences of not fully understanding the situation. Poland was perceived as an artificial formation imposed by the anti-Bolshevik Treaty of Versailles, and on this territory the oppressed Poles and Byelorussians live, who will be happy about the war. It turned out - they are not happy to see Bolsheviks. By the way, if they had won, they could have supported the Communists comrades in Germany and nazis would not came power But this is an alternative story and fantasy. I do not know maybe the place of "the worst" would have been occupied by Stalin. in history. then, it came to 1939. By the way, Churchill supported the actions of the USSR then. Well, it's not good. Somehow it happened. Well, Finland. And why interfere with the strengthening of the defense of the USSR against Germany? You or neutral, then be neutral. Once he began to cooperate with Germany, well, what else to expect.
Poland was not a product of Versailles per se though. The Brest-Litovsk agreement between Germany and Russia already ceded those areas to Germany and made Russia renounce its claims on Poland. Lenin actually supported the Brest-Litovsk agreement, he signed it. So the Soviets reneged on their treaty later. If they managed to conquer Poland in the 20's there was no guarantee that Germany would have turned socialist. Significant and powerful parts of German society were firmly anti-communist. On top of the fact that the 1918 Allies might have actually supported Germany in a war with the Soviet Union.
Churchill did not support the Soviet actions in 1939. The British were aghast that Hitler and Stalin had actually signed a pact. There was some consideration on the part of France and Britain to actually go to war with the Soviet Union over the war in Finland. Stalin didn't strengthen the SU with the its alliance to Hitler, it actually strengthened Nazi Germany and catastrophically exposed the Soviets to the 1941 invasion. If anything, the 1939 pact weakened Stalin, with a more defensible border being left for an exposed forward position. Stalin cooperated more with Hitler than Churchill ever did, seeing as Churchill wasn't in power in 1939.
The problem as you point out is that authoritarian governments can also not care about improving the situation of its population. Overall people would prefer to live in democracies, as they tend to have more benefits both individually and for society on the whole.
We in Russia have a democratic government. Is it beneficial for government to improve people's lives? What for? Is it profitable for them to develop their economies? It is more like they should. But they do not. And what can people do? Nothing. Business is not profitable. Just get out of here and get work in "normal" capitalist countries.
Its not exactly democratic though, it has some of the trappings of a democracy, but it really isn't once. Russia is an authoritarian oligarchy with a little democratic veneer over it. The Russian economy is not helped by the massive corruption of the oligarchs, it might have turned into a decent economy if not for the catastrophic push towards instant capitalism. The example of China provides a more gradual and slightly more beneficial path without the collapse.
Russia is still interesting to cooperate with for many countries. Russia together with China counterbalance the West in the UN and often find common ground there.
It is more like a struggle for existence than counterbalance. At what our oligarchy do not care what will happen to the country, if the resistance is finally broken.
Its not a struggle for existence. Russia and China are actively preventing a more active role of the West through the prevention of UN mandates, that goes beyond mere existence.
Freakazoitt wrote: For example, in Scandinavia there is somwthing like socialism. It because of the small population and the availability of resources. And these resources are not captured by foreign capital. And their government is not greedy (which is strange )
Scandinavia has taken socialism quite far policy wise. Resource wise Scandinavia is pretty poor, but good long term planning based on demographics and taxes should enable most modern economies to maintain that. If Russia's economy transitions into calmer and more prosperous waters they might establish a similar system, but the current political climate combined with the economy and poverty levels make it hard to do so with resource income on a downward trend. A stable and relatively wealthy tax base is enough for a Scandinavian model, if the political will is there,
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/10 14:13:01
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
"Facist Europe"? You mean Nazi Germany and some of its European allies?
Germany, which wanted to fight. To avenge the defeat in the WW1. And the WW1 they also started. This is fascism. And hey - Spain is fascist, Italy is fascist, Germany is fascist, Vici France is pro-fascist and lesser countries were happy "good! with German's help we will make Our Little Great Countryname from Baltic to Black Sea!". Do you think only the personality of Hitler and the Nazi party are responsible for this? No, this is where the crowd corporately motivates that they can become some kind of "nobles" and that they are better than others just because they are of some nationality, which is characteristic not only of the nazis. See that Europeans are saying now: "I am proud being German nationality" under some Wehrmacht videos. Who are you to be proud of it? What did you personally do to be proud of? And what are you trying to be proud of? The fact that your country twice arranged a world war, committed war crimes and finally lost that wars? What is so good about it? Or quotes like "I'm nostalgic about the good old days when we had eggs." You did not have any eggs, you were brainwashed you have it to send you fight war and die. There was imperialism, which sent crowds of people to fight with each other for the benefit of the elites. And the fools were happy to die for the sake of the wealth of their masters, because they were motivated by these nationalistic values "I am proud to die for my king/emperor/fuhrer"
The way you said Fascist Europe sounded strange. Because plenty of Europe was occupied thanks in part to the Soviet deal with Nazi Germany to cover its flank and provide critical resources for the war. Lets not pretend the SU was very innocent in WW2 after having made a deal with Hitler to conquer Poland and acquiring the Baltics and go to war with Finland. Vichy France was an odd German ally as Free France also existed, but Vichy France never actually helped out Germany with troops on the Eastern Front like Italy, Hungary, Romania and others did.
Hey, we just wanted to maintain Poland as a nice little buffer between the USSR and the Nazis. The only alternative was to let the Nazis take all of Poland, so it is not like the Soviets had much of a choice.
Also, Vichy France did help out the Nazis with troops on other fronts. I feel that in general, a distinction should be made against people and countries who willingly aided and supported the Nazis such as Italy and Vichy France and those who actually opposed the Nazis but were kinda forced by circumstances to ally with them, such as Hungary and Finland.
The West never 'respected' Russia or the Soviet Union in a geopolitical opponent sense.
But now they respect much less. The country has no principles, no ideology, no unifying idea, no slogan, it can not be of any interest to other countries to cooperate with it, except for accusations against "evil America."
Well that's not because of the collapse of the SU, at first there was great hope that ties between Russia-US-Europe would become better and that perhaps together they might become the new West (very optimistic). Yet the oligarchy that moved in kind of blocked and destroyed that idea. Russia is still interesting to cooperate with for many countries. Russia together with China counterbalance the West in the UN and often find common ground there. Plus Russia has a very pragmatic (some would say cynical) approach to international politics which makes it a usefull partner or independent third party to some countries. Yes it might not carry the same sort of weight the SU did, but its still pretty important.
No, no, that is not at all how it went. The oligarchy wanted cooperation with the West. And after Putin and the siloviks broke the power of the oligarchs, they also wanted closer ties to the West. But the West did not want closer ties to Russia. NATO broke its word with its eastward expansion, surrounding Russia. Then they bombed Serbia. The West consistently ignored and marginalised Russia. The list of slights (real and perceived) is long. They did not respond to offers of friendship, but kept criticising and treating Russia as an enemy. Russia was clearly not respected anymore. This was a very humiliating experience and it is what has led to the rise of anti-Western sentiment and Russian nationalism in Russia.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Socialism can be great, but one group can also domineer and exploit it like in the Dutch example. That isn't a failure of socialism though. The government could have seen this problem from a mile away with declining birth rates. They put short term political gain over the long term health of the system.
As all politicians do. It is one of the big failures of democracy, as already observed by people such as Plato, Aristotle or Machiavelli thousands of years ago.
"Facist Europe"? You mean Nazi Germany and some of its European allies?
Germany, which wanted to fight. To avenge the defeat in the WW1. And the WW1 they also started. This is fascism. And hey - Spain is fascist, Italy is fascist, Germany is fascist, Vici France is pro-fascist and lesser countries were happy "good! with German's help we will make Our Little Great Countryname from Baltic to Black Sea!". Do you think only the personality of Hitler and the Nazi party are responsible for this? No, this is where the crowd corporately motivates that they can become some kind of "nobles" and that they are better than others just because they are of some nationality, which is characteristic not only of the nazis. See that Europeans are saying now: "I am proud being German nationality" under some Wehrmacht videos. Who are you to be proud of it? What did you personally do to be proud of? And what are you trying to be proud of? The fact that your country twice arranged a world war, committed war crimes and finally lost that wars? What is so good about it? Or quotes like "I'm nostalgic about the good old days when we had eggs." You did not have any eggs, you were brainwashed you have it to send you fight war and die. There was imperialism, which sent crowds of people to fight with each other for the benefit of the elites. And the fools were happy to die for the sake of the wealth of their masters, because they were motivated by these nationalistic values "I am proud to die for my king/emperor/fuhrer"
The way you said Fascist Europe sounded strange. Because plenty of Europe was occupied thanks in part to the Soviet deal with Nazi Germany to cover its flank and provide critical resources for the war. Lets not pretend the SU was very innocent in WW2 after having made a deal with Hitler to conquer Poland and acquiring the Baltics and go to war with Finland. Vichy France was an odd German ally as Free France also existed, but Vichy France never actually helped out Germany with troops on the Eastern Front like Italy, Hungary, Romania and others did.
Hey, we just wanted to maintain Poland as a nice little buffer between the USSR and the Nazis. The only alternative was to let the Nazis take all of Poland, so it is not like the Soviets had much of a choice.
Also, Vichy France did help out the Nazis with troops on other fronts. I feel that in general, a distinction should be made against people and countries who willingly aided and supported the Nazis such as Italy and Vichy France and those who actually opposed the Nazis but were kinda forced by circumstances to ally with them, such as Hungary and Finland.
A buffer, fine. Did Stalin also have to supply resources for the Nazi war machine and annex the Baltics? No. They had choices, they gave a lot more than required, plus it put the Red Army exposed on a silver platter. It was a mistake that only made Hitler stronger.
Well Vichy France didn't. Its troops stayed in Vichy territory where they ended up clashing with the Allies. But that wasn't done to help Hitler. Yes they should distinguish. Although I'm not sure I would put Hungary in the forced category from the start. Italy and Vichy France were on different levels as well.
The West never 'respected' Russia or the Soviet Union in a geopolitical opponent sense.
But now they respect much less. The country has no principles, no ideology, no unifying idea, no slogan, it can not be of any interest to other countries to cooperate with it, except for accusations against "evil America."
Well that's not because of the collapse of the SU, at first there was great hope that ties between Russia-US-Europe would become better and that perhaps together they might become the new West (very optimistic). Yet the oligarchy that moved in kind of blocked and destroyed that idea. Russia is still interesting to cooperate with for many countries. Russia together with China counterbalance the West in the UN and often find common ground there. Plus Russia has a very pragmatic (some would say cynical) approach to international politics which makes it a usefull partner or independent third party to some countries. Yes it might not carry the same sort of weight the SU did, but its still pretty important.
No, no, that is not at all how it went. The oligarchy wanted cooperation with the West. And after Putin and the siloviks broke the power of the oligarchs, they also wanted closer ties to the West. But the West did not want closer ties to Russia. NATO broke its word with its eastward expansion, surrounding Russia. Then they bombed Serbia. The West consistently ignored and marginalised Russia. The list of slights (real and perceived) is long. They did not respond to offers of friendship, but kept criticising and treating Russia as an enemy. Russia was clearly not respected anymore. This was a very humiliating experience and it is what has led to the rise of anti-Western sentiment and Russian nationalism in Russia.
I made it a bit too simplistic I guess. Western optimism about how Russia was supposed to turn out in their eyes wasn't validated. It was much too optimistic too see such changes and total adherence to Western politics in assuming Russia would just dissapear into NATO and such. Russia still was independent and eventually opposing views clashed. The Yugoslavian Civil War is a good example of how different the views still were, how opposing as well. The West expected way too much after 91, should have been more patient about the transition. Of course less than a decade to totally transform a country is just unrealistic. But less than 15 year later there were significant amounts of politicians thinking that once the tanks rolled into Baghdad it would just transform into a Western democracy like a miracle.
Both sides in the West-Russia reset went in with wrong ideas what was going to happen. Sadly most of the damage ended up being done to Russia of course.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Socialism can be great, but one group can also domineer and exploit it like in the Dutch example. That isn't a failure of socialism though. The government could have seen this problem from a mile away with declining birth rates. They put short term political gain over the long term health of the system.
As all politicians do. It is one of the big failures of democracy, as already observed by people such as Plato, Aristotle or Machiavelli thousands of years ago.
Well the problem of democracy is that these people are given jobs by voters. So long term planning is like getting yourself fired in some aspects. It worked for a while and with some effort socialist policies will still work, just be different.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/10 14:38:34
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
The fall of Poland was in no way caused by betrayal by Britain.
Inaction of Britain led to a number of consequences that could be avoided. Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Finland. We can say that the powering Hitler and loss of Europe is the result of inaction of Britain. Hitler would not have attacked if Britain had respected the ally treaty and would have somehow participate in defense of Poland. Also, the USSR would not have invaded Poland, if Britain had reacted actively to this. But Churchill even reacted positively to the actions of the USSR.
No, there won't be war soon. These are the extreme elements in the AfD and most of their voters wouldn't agree with that part, beyond the party not having the electoral support to get really big. Also Germany is in no condition to go to war with Russia. Its army is not big enough, Russia has nukes and Germany is heavily tied up in European and American political and defensive ties. Any potential war between Russia and just Germany will be in a far and freaky future.
Some result will still be, if not stop. Clashes with arabic refugees, for example. they can say "the government does nothing with this problem, then we will solve this problem in our own way"
it actually strengthened Nazi Germany and catastrophically exposed the Soviets to the 1941 invasion.
This is a myth of the times of the collapse of the USSR. For two years the army has completely transformed rapidly and began to be pulled together to the border. Production was increased, new tanks and planes were designed and constructed. Instead of a revolutionary army, where orders did not necessarily have to be executed, they returned rigid discipline as before. But many mistakes were made. for example, they were preparing for the fact that Germany would begin with provocations and gradually develop provocations for real actions. And then the Red Army will attack and crush the enemy on its territory. What happened was the naivety and underestimation of the enemy and the reassessment of the quality of own army.
Its not exactly democratic though, it has some of the trappings of a democracy, but it really isn't once. Russia is an authoritarian oligarchy with a little democratic veneer over it. The Russian economy is not helped by the massive corruption of the oligarchs, it might have turned into a decent economy if not for the catastrophic push towards instant capitalism. The example of China provides a more gradual and slightly more beneficial path without the collapse.
And why oligarchs not afraid that they will bring country to such a condition when people will want to remove them. And why they are not afraid that West will not want to defend their bank accounts but simply take it for themselves, like Gaddafi's.
Its not a struggle for existence. Russia and China are actively preventing a more active role of the West through the prevention of UN mandates, that goes beyond mere existence.
In many cases they just ignored. Like when Serbia was bombed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/10 18:15:24
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
It's just an agreement that there will not be an attack. Everyone understood that it was just delaying
No there was more to it in secret clauses. It was a division of Eastern Europe and Soviet resource support for the Nazi war machine. The texts of the pact are easily available revealing it was far beyond a mere non-aggression pact.
The fall of Poland was in no way caused by betrayal by Britain.
Inaction of Britain led to a number of consequences that could be avoided. Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Finland. We can say that the powering Hitler and loss of Europe is the result of inaction of Britain. Hitler would not have attacked if Britain had respected the ally treaty and would have somehow participate in defense of Poland. Also, the USSR would not have invaded Poland, if Britain had reacted actively to this. But Churchill even reacted positively to the actions of the USSR.
Just like Soviet inaction led to avoidable consequences, so? The British tried to avert war with Czechoslovakia. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was clearly a pact that would secure Soviet support for Nazi Germany for the start of WW2. Hitler felt secure enough to invade Poland thanks to the Soviets. Britain might have given Hitler Czechoslovakia, but the Soviets handed him Poland, the Benelux and France. Without Soviet assurances all those German troops would have to guard against a possible two front war.
Those were French SSers, not Vichy troops. Even a decent chunk of Soviets joined the SS. The SS just recruited the far right segments of European populations independently from their national governments.
No, there won't be war soon. These are the extreme elements in the AfD and most of their voters wouldn't agree with that part, beyond the party not having the electoral support to get really big. Also Germany is in no condition to go to war with Russia. Its army is not big enough, Russia has nukes and Germany is heavily tied up in European and American political and defensive ties. Any potential war between Russia and just Germany will be in a far and freaky future.
Some result will still be, if not stop. Clashes with arabic refugees, for example. they can say "the government does nothing with this problem, then we will solve this problem in our own way"
Yes they could. But luckily enough a large enough of amount of Germans see the AfD for what it is. Yes part of the population is showing their xenophobic side, but they always held those views. Its not going to lead to a new war, its just giving some public opinions that are revolting to the normal part of society.
Poland was not a product of Versailles per se though.
Yes I know. Poland appeared because there were Poles of course. But I wrote the point of view that Lenin had. For them, resistance was a surprise.
The surprise was more that Poland turned out to be able to resist the Red Army. Even Lenin was pragmatic, he accepted the results for a while, but Poland wasn't imposed on the Soviets, they signed the treaty that made it possible. Of course it didn't lessen the ideas amongst them such as Stalin's that Poland was a monstrosity.
s there was no guarantee that Germany would have turned socialist. Significant and powerful parts of German society were firmly anti-communist.
Nobody knows and does not know how could it be.
Exactly, but it was clear that the socialists weren't going to get a revolution on their own in Germany. But its unlikely the Red Army would have actually been able to conquer Germany and stop the rise of Nazism. There were plenty of opportunities to stop Hitler, if only Einstein's time machine plan had worked
Churchill did not support the Soviet actions in 1939
He did not react to this in any way and later responded positively about it, that there appeared something like a stable positions.
Source? For whatever horrible things Churchill did I very much doubt he was positive towards the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. In fact he was as good as jumping up and down from joy when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, because Churchill expected that with the Soviets involved Hitler might be finally beaten.
There was some consideration on the part of France and Britain to actually go to war with the Soviet Union over the war in Finland.
First some ancient cannons were sent, and then they left the Finns.
Yes, because reality set in. France and Britain were in no position to help Finland. Let alone practically getting reinforcements and equipment there through a German dominated Baltic Sea. Imagine the utter mess of a three way war between the Allies, the Soviets and the Axis after 41. Worst of all fighting the Soviets might have actually caused them to lose to Germany. Thank feth the world didn't get fethed over by the Nazis in the name of saving Finland, sorry Finland...
it actually strengthened Nazi Germany and catastrophically exposed the Soviets to the 1941 invasion.
This is a myth of the times of the collapse of the USSR. For two years the army has completely transformed rapidly and began to be pulled together to the border. Production was increased, new tanks and planes were designed and constructed. Instead of a revolutionary army, where orders did not necessarily have to be executed, they returned rigid discipline as before. But many mistakes were made. for example, they were preparing for the fact that Germany would begin with provocations and gradually develop provocations for real actions. And then the Red Army will attack and crush the enemy on its territory. What happened was the naivety and underestimation of the enemy and the reassessment of the quality of own army.
The fact was thay the Red Army matured equipment and doctrine wise in the 30's. Stalin's purges did massive damage to the Red Army however. Finland provided invaluable lessons to the Soviets to get back on their feet. It didn't prevent the incredible defeats a year later and the loss of almost THREE MILLION Soviet troops to German captivity and death. Doctrine doesn't matter when the army is incapable.
Its not a struggle for existence. Russia and China are actively preventing a more active role of the West through the prevention of UN mandates, that goes beyond mere existence.
In many cases they just ignored. Like when Serbia was bombed.
Yes and the West is ignored about Russia bombing in Syria. Ignoring the other is a two way street.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/10 19:32:40
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
No there was more to it in secret clauses. It was a division of Eastern Europe and Soviet resource support for the Nazi war machine. The texts of the pact are easily available revealing it was far beyond a mere non-aggression pact.
This is not true and distorts the picture in order to hide the insidiousness and mistakes of Britain, accusing the USSR of supporting Germany. Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles with the tacit consent of the Entente. He was given territories, factories, workers, resources, whole countries with developed industry. Finally, in his hands was a whole Europe. Why did they let him? There are no other explanations, except for that he attacked the USSR. If you look back, you will see that the ex-Entente and the USSR were enemies. So, what we have: Three players - Hitler, the USSR and the Anglo-French. And it is not known who will attack first. And when the two sides are at war with each other, the third will definitely join. And usually, he who later joins, he wins (Hello USA). Therefore, if Germany attacks the USSR, the Entente strategically wins both of them. Stalin understood this. So, you need to do it so that you do not get to war first. How to do it? And the Germans themselves proposed a pact. And so they signed a verdict against themselves. But at some point they understood the mistake and attacked. The USSR was preparing for this, but he was counting on that it would happen later and not so suddenly. But withstood a terrible blow and eventually won. So, the pact is not evil, but good.
Yes they could. But luckily enough a large enough of amount of Germans see the AfD for what it is. Yes part of the population is showing their xenophobic side, but they always held those views. Its not going to lead to a new war, its just giving some public opinions that are revolting to the normal part of society.
Obviously, this is not normal. It's anti-human. People who threaten other people with violence and justify it with some ideas and who consider themselves to be correct should be prohibited. They are not forbidden, because it is beneficial for ... speaking in old-fashioned words, it is beneficial to capital to suppress its class enemies. Or for some other purpose. You can be sure - if their availability were not profitable, they would be immediately removed and no freedom of speech would help.
Exactly, but it was clear that the socialists weren't going to get a revolution on their own in Germany. But its unlikely the Red Army would have actually been able to conquer Germany and stop the rise of Nazism. There were plenty of opportunities to stop Hitler, if only Einstein's time machine plan had worked
It's a naive thought that a time machine can stop someone. Assume someone went to the past to kill Hitler. And how will he do it? They will grab him instantly. And what, did not anyone at that time want to kill Hitler? Many wanted and it did not work. In addition, the role of Hitler's personality is not absolute. After all, it was put forward by other Nazis. So, they could find replacement or use another person if he was assasinated when he was young. In addition, the Entente is to blame for the growth of Hitler's power. Therefore, they can interfere with the construction of a time machine.
Source? For whatever horrible things Churchill did I very much doubt he was positive towards the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. In fact he was as good as jumping up and down from joy when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, because Churchill expected that with the Soviets involved Hitler might be finally beaten.
Yes, because reality set in. France and Britain were in no position to help Finland. Let alone practically getting reinforcements and equipment there through a German dominated Baltic Sea. Imagine the utter mess of a three way war between the Allies, the Soviets and the Axis after 41. Worst of all fighting the Soviets might have actually caused them to lose to Germany. Thank feth the world didn't get fethed over by the Nazis in the name of saving Finland, sorry Finland...
Finland could avoid participation in the war if it gave Stalin a piece of land to ensure the security of Leningrad and a tiny stone island to block Leningrad on the Baltic. In return, very large territories were offered in Karelia. But as a result of stubbornness they only suffered losses.
I do not justify the war, but that was the reality of that difficult time.
The fact was thay the Red Army matured equipment and doctrine wise in the 30's. Stalin's purges did massive damage to the Red Army however. Finland provided invaluable lessons to the Soviets to get back on their feet. It didn't prevent the incredible defeats a year later and the loss of almost THREE MILLION Soviet troops to German captivity and death. Doctrine doesn't matter when the army is incapable.
I wonder how long the same mistakes are repeated. Much was already clear in the Spanish war. 1941 showed that simply the number of tanks does not mean that these tanks will be really used and will lead to victory. There were some reforms, but the mass production of tanks still remained. T-34 tanks were produced more numbers than could be provided with command, supply and other necessary things. In the cold war again mass production of T-55 tanks. When the USSR collapsing in the 80's, again mass production of T-64 / T-72 / T-80 tanks. Today, too, are going to mass produce new T-72/90 and Armata. Hey, what about the prepared crews? We'll put in the tank yesterday's schoolchildren and job done.
However, in some tactics the Red Army adapted well and quickly.
No there was more to it in secret clauses. It was a division of Eastern Europe and Soviet resource support for the Nazi war machine. The texts of the pact are easily available revealing it was far beyond a mere non-aggression pact.
This is not true and distorts the picture in order to hide the insidiousness and mistakes of Britain, accusing the USSR of supporting Germany. Hitler violated the Treaty of Versailles with the tacit consent of the Entente. He was given territories, factories, workers, resources, whole countries with developed industry. Finally, in his hands was a whole Europe. Why did they let him? There are no other explanations, except for that he attacked the USSR. If you look back, you will see that the ex-Entente and the USSR were enemies. So, what we have: Three players - Hitler, the USSR and the Anglo-French. And it is not known who will attack first. And when the two sides are at war with each other, the third will definitely join. And usually, he who later joins, he wins (Hello USA). Therefore, if Germany attacks the USSR, the Entente strategically wins both of them. Stalin understood this. So, you need to do it so that you do not get to war first. How to do it? And the Germans themselves proposed a pact. And so they signed a verdict against themselves. But at some point they understood the mistake and attacked. The USSR was preparing for this, but he was counting on that it would happen later and not so suddenly. But withstood a terrible blow and eventually won. So, the pact is not evil, but good.
Where to begin with this. First of all the Soviet Union did support Germany, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact secured Germany's second front while it focused on Western Europe. Furthermore the Soviet Union provided the Nazis with critical resources they couldn't have gotten elsewhere from 1939 to 1941 such as almost a million tons of oil and hundreds of thousands of tons of rare metals. Without these resources Nazi Germany wouldn't even have been able to sustain its production to invade the Soviet Union. Soviet trade with the Nazis almost ensured their own destruction.
Hitler violated the terms of Versailles true, but France and Britain felt to be in no position for another war. Given territories is an overstatement. The only thing Britain and France really gave Hitler was the Sudetenland. Neither they nor the Soviet Union did much to prevent the Anschluss or the First Vienna Award, in which neither parties played a part. So no, not whole countries. France and Britain let him take Sudetenland for the same reason the Soviet Union let Hitler take Western Poland with their help, none of them felt to be in any position to wage a war with Germany at their times. Of course hindsight is a wonderful tool.
The letting Hitler attack the Soviets idea is a bit ridiculous. France and Britain put themselves on the line to stop Hitler in Poland and really lost in 1940. There was no secret plan to send Hitler off against the Soviets, which indeed was a fear of Stalin and later a feverish fantasy of some German officers. Both Hitler and Stalin recognized that eventually their ideologies were going to clash sooner rather than later. It was Hitler's original plan after all, he gambled that France and Britain wouldn't have gone to war over Poland. What's more, France and Britain actually sought to ally with the Soviets against Hitler in 1939, but Stalin choose to go with the partnership with Hitler, which came to bite the Soviets in the ass in a major way. France and Britain weren't even considering a war with the Soviets until the Finland War, during which they were already at war with Germany.
The thing Stalin understood was that he needed more time to postpone the inevitable, which is why the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 seemed like such a good idea. It turned out to be an almost fatal mistake. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact wasn't a mistake for the Germans. It enabled the Germans to focus their whole army on a single front while obtaining critical resources from the Soviets. It prevented a two front war WW1 scenario for the Germans, of course Hitler thought the Pact was a great idea. The Pact was very much evil, because in 1939 Germany was in no way capable to fight a two front war or sustain it. It just strengthened the inevitable blow against the Soviet Union into an almost killing one. Of course that leaves aside the evil of the Soviets attacking the Baltics and Poland, leading to the Katyn Massacre. So yes, the Pact was very much stupid and very much evil.
Yes they could. But luckily enough a large enough of amount of Germans see the AfD for what it is. Yes part of the population is showing their xenophobic side, but they always held those views. Its not going to lead to a new war, its just giving some public opinions that are revolting to the normal part of society.
Obviously, this is not normal. It's anti-human. People who threaten other people with violence and justify it with some ideas and who consider themselves to be correct should be prohibited. They are not forbidden, because it is beneficial for ... speaking in old-fashioned words, it is beneficial to capital to suppress its class enemies. Or for some other purpose. You can be sure - if their availability were not profitable, they would be immediately removed and no freedom of speech would help.
It isn't normal. But free speech goes so far and Germany is actually quite hawkish on overstepping the bounds of free speech. So the AfD skirts the line of the legally acceptable and crosses far into the socially unacceptable. The AfD is in no way beneficial to the German ruling elite and economy however, because those are pretty pro-EU while the AfD isn't.
Exactly, but it was clear that the socialists weren't going to get a revolution on their own in Germany. But its unlikely the Red Army would have actually been able to conquer Germany and stop the rise of Nazism. There were plenty of opportunities to stop Hitler, if only Einstein's time machine plan had worked
It's a naive thought that a time machine can stop someone. Assume someone went to the past to kill Hitler. And how will he do it? They will grab him instantly. And what, did not anyone at that time want to kill Hitler? Many wanted and it did not work. In addition, the role of Hitler's personality is not absolute. After all, it was put forward by other Nazis. So, they could find replacement or use another person if he was assasinated when he was young. In addition, the Entente is to blame for the growth of Hitler's power. Therefore, they can interfere with the construction of a time machine.
Its a Red Alert joke In Red Alert Einstein builds a time machine and kills Hitler, leading to a war between the Allies and the Soviets because Nazi-Germany never existed. Actually the role and importance of Hitler as a figurehead is pretty important. None of the early followers of Hitler really had the gift for politics and public speaking he had. It would have been much much harder without Hitler, and of course much of the batgak insane gak of Nazi ideology came directly from Hitler himself and influenced his subordinates who wanted his favor. Without Hitler we wouldn't have seen the Nazi party as it came to power in 1933. Also the Entente played its part in creating Hitler, but so did the Soviet Union and a immense amount of other factors.
Source? For whatever horrible things Churchill did I very much doubt he was positive towards the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. In fact he was as good as jumping up and down from joy when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union, because Churchill expected that with the Soviets involved Hitler might be finally beaten.
Churchill's 1 october 1939 interview
Thanks. You seem to be misreading what Churchill is saying. He is saying that he doesn't know why the Soviets do what they do, only that they do it out of national interest. But he believes that the Soviets will scare off Hitler from expanding further into Eastern Europe because of Soviet national interests in Eastern Europe. Nowhere does he actually state that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is a good idea, just that its actions are an enigma. Plus you have to take into account that Churchill in 1939 could only have been aware of the non-aggression side of the pact, not the secret part dividing up Eastern Europe. That part only came to light in 1946.
Yes, because reality set in. France and Britain were in no position to help Finland. Let alone practically getting reinforcements and equipment there through a German dominated Baltic Sea. Imagine the utter mess of a three way war between the Allies, the Soviets and the Axis after 41. Worst of all fighting the Soviets might have actually caused them to lose to Germany. Thank feth the world didn't get fethed over by the Nazis in the name of saving Finland, sorry Finland...
Finland could avoid participation in the war if it gave Stalin a piece of land to ensure the security of Leningrad and a tiny stone island to block Leningrad on the Baltic. In return, very large territories were offered in Karelia. But as a result of stubbornness they only suffered losses.
I do not justify the war, but that was the reality of that difficult time.
Which is a ridiculous claim. The Soviet Union could have avoided the war with Germany if only it had ceded the land west of the Urals, but why would any sovereign country do so? The border area was vital for Finnish defense too and had a reasonably large city at the time. Being offered desolate and worthless territories does not make up for that.
I agree it was the reality of the time, but it was nowhere near necessary and as 1941 showed it only set up Finland to attack the Soviets again. To secure Leningrad the Soviet nearly lost Leningrad to the consequences of their own actions. There is a trend noticeable in long term Soviet planning between 1939 and 1941 don't you think
The fact was thay the Red Army matured equipment and doctrine wise in the 30's. Stalin's purges did massive damage to the Red Army however. Finland provided invaluable lessons to the Soviets to get back on their feet. It didn't prevent the incredible defeats a year later and the loss of almost THREE MILLION Soviet troops to German captivity and death. Doctrine doesn't matter when the army is incapable.
I wonder how long the same mistakes are repeated. Much was already clear in the Spanish war. 1941 showed that simply the number of tanks does not mean that these tanks will be really used and will lead to victory. There were some reforms, but the mass production of tanks still remained. T-34 tanks were produced more numbers than could be provided with command, supply and other necessary things. In the cold war again mass production of T-55 tanks. When the USSR collapsing in the 80's, again mass production of T-64 / T-72 / T-80 tanks. Today, too, are going to mass produce new T-72/90 and Armata. Hey, what about the prepared crews? We'll put in the tank yesterday's schoolchildren and job done.
However, in some tactics the Red Army adapted well and quickly.
Well you would hope that your crews outlive more than one tank. There are stories of crews going through over a dozen tanks during WW2. There is value in a strategic reserve of material and especially in WW2 Soviet production versus German production helped the Soviets win the war. But its true that the Soviets produced far more equipment than they ever needed. But that is frequently the case in more authoritarian societies, because the army takes on a disproportionate amount of political influence and demands just more stuff. Even in the US you can see the political influences behind giving the US army unnecessary stuff, although that might be more from the civilian side than the military.
1941 and 1942 were incredibly tragic and steep learning curves for the Red Army, but it remains impressive how they still managed to turn the war and a testament to how sheer numbers can win a war with enough determination. 1941-1945 just meant death on such an unimaginable scale, really depressing to think about it sometimes.
Yes and the West is ignored about Russia bombing in Syria. Ignoring the other is a two way street.
Hey, bombing the country and the bombing terrorists are two different things.
Well that depends on how you look at things. The West was doing the right thing in its mind in Serbia. Russia is doing the same in Syria, but the West doesn't consider all the people Russia bombs terrorists, and there are the civilian casualties. Whoever's viewpoint is right depends on your own outlook.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/12/11 11:21:16
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Where to begin with this. First of all the Soviet Union did support Germany, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact secured Germany's second front while it focused on Western Europe. Furthermore the Soviet Union provided the Nazis with critical resources they couldn't have gotten elsewhere from 1939 to 1941 such as almost a million tons of oil and hundreds of thousands of tons of rare metals. Without these resources Nazi Germany wouldn't even have been able to sustain its production to invade the Soviet Union. Soviet trade with the Nazis almost ensured their own destruction.
It is wrong to blame the USSR for supporting Germany with resources, since the main source of resources for them was the British and US. Even Canada participated in this, supplying 50% of all nickel. With the outbreak of the war, trade relations between the USSR and Germany ceased immediately, while Britain and the United States did not stop them. And it does not look very good. The involvement of Western countries in the German industry even during the war is so great that it can not be compared with the trade in resources of the USSR.
Hitler violated the terms of Versailles true, but France and Britain felt to be in no position for another war. Given territories is an overstatement. The only thing Britain and France really gave Hitler was the Sudetenland. Neither they nor the Soviet Union did much to prevent the Anschluss or the First Vienna Award, in which neither parties played a part. So no, not whole countries. France and Britain let him take Sudetenland for the same reason the Soviet Union let Hitler take Western Poland with their help, none of them felt to be in any position to wage a war with Germany at their times. Of course hindsight is a wonderful tool.
The letting Hitler attack the Soviets idea is a bit ridiculous. France and Britain put themselves on the line to stop Hitler in Poland and really lost in 1940. There was no secret plan to send Hitler off against the Soviets, which indeed was a fear of Stalin and later a feverish fantasy of some German officers. Both Hitler and Stalin recognized that eventually their ideologies were going to clash sooner rather than later. It was Hitler's original plan after all, he gambled that France and Britain wouldn't have gone to war over Poland. What's more, France and Britain actually sought to ally with the Soviets against Hitler in 1939, but Stalin choose to go with the partnership with Hitler, which came to bite the Soviets in the ass in a major way. France and Britain weren't even considering a war with the Soviets until the Finland War, during which they were already at war with Germany.
There was no help from the USSR for the German seizure of Poland:
Summer 1939: Britain tried to impose on the USSR the obligation to fight against Germany, while remaining free from any obligations
August 1939: Poland announced, that if war will begin, Polish army will rush into Germany and French army will do the same
14 th August: Britain and France avoided any alliance with the USSR, saying Poland should do it first. Poland refused, fearing that USSR with replace it's government to pro-soviet
The USSR was compelled to ask its enemy (Poland) for permission to defend it for the sake of an alliance with the Entente. Poland expressed fears that the Red Army would remain in Poland. Then the Soviet Union proposed to bring there Anglo-French troops, which would ensure that the Red Army did not "accidentally" change the government in Poland. Everyone refused.
Negotiations stalled
Ribbentrop began bombarding the USSR with proposals in fear of getting two fronts
17 August - nonresult negotiations with the Entente. It becomes obvious that they do not want to have any obligations to the USSR (which gives them opportunities, which are not good for the USSR)
21 August - Britain invites Germany to alternative negotiations. Germany agrees. Chamberlain is invited to Berlin.
23 August - Molotov Ribbentrop Pact signed, shocking Britain.
The result was to be the war of Poland, Britain and France against Germany.
1st September - the war started. Polish president left Warsaw
3 st September Britan and France declared war on Germany, but didn't actually participated despite of the fact that they had 3 times more forces against Germany there
They threw leaflets on Germany and ordered balls and cards, so as not to get bored. Betrayal!
10st September The Entente lied to the Polish about the offensive, while French troops were stayed at their positions and not even one British soldier there
11st September - Polish government prepearing to leave country. No acton from USSR.
12 st September French troops are ordered not to advance
17st September. Polish goverment left. USSR announced, that Poland state is not exist.It is dangerous for Ukrainian and Belorussian territories and while no treaties with the Polish are no longer valid, the USSR has the right to protect them.
What we have:
Polish government showed its inconsistency
Germany - bad guys
Entente - cowards and traitors (perhaps I'm exaggerating though)
USSR - not involved by diplomatic terms
The thing Stalin understood was that he needed more time to postpone the inevitable, which is why the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 seemed like such a good idea. It turned out to be an almost fatal mistake. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact wasn't a mistake for the Germans. It enabled the Germans to focus their whole army on a single front while obtaining critical resources from the Soviets. It prevented a two front war WW1 scenario for the Germans, of course Hitler thought the Pact was a great idea. The Pact was very much evil, because in 1939 Germany was in no way capable to fight a two front war or sustain it. It just strengthened the inevitable blow against the Soviet Union into an almost killing one. Of course that leaves aside the evil of the Soviets attacking the Baltics and Poland, leading to the Katyn Massacre. So yes, the Pact was very much stupid and very much evil.
It was evil for Brits, rushing their combination, in which they defeat two enemies at once. But in the end, Germany was defeated, and the USSR - not.
It isn't normal. But free speech goes so far and Germany is actually quite hawkish on overstepping the bounds of free speech. So the AfD skirts the line of the legally acceptable and crosses far into the socially unacceptable. The AfD is in no way beneficial to the German ruling elite and economy however, because those are pretty pro-EU while the AfD isn't.
Well, it means that it is beneficial to someone from outside Germany. I will not poke a finger.
Its a Red Alert joke In Red Alert Einstein builds a time machine and kills Hitler, leading to a war between the Allies and the Soviets because Nazi-Germany never existed. Actually the role and importance of Hitler as a figurehead is pretty important. None of the early followers of Hitler really had the gift for politics and public speaking he had. It would have been much much harder without Hitler, and of course much of the batgak insane gak of Nazi ideology came directly from Hitler himself and influenced his subordinates who wanted his favor. Without Hitler we wouldn't have seen the Nazi party as it came to power in 1933. Also the Entente played its part in creating Hitler, but so did the Soviet Union and a immense amount of other factors.
Rarely drew attention to the plot of these games. yes, he was a good speaker. but hardly the nazism would not be able to exist without him.
Thanks. You seem to be misreading what Churchill is saying. He is saying that he doesn't know why the Soviets do what they do, only that they do it out of national interest. But he believes that the Soviets will scare off Hitler from expanding further into Eastern Europe because of Soviet national interests in Eastern Europe. Nowhere does he actually state that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is a good idea, just that its actions are an enigma. Plus you have to take into account that Churchill in 1939 could only have been aware of the non-aggression side of the pact, not the secret part dividing up Eastern Europe. That part only came to light in 1946.
uh ... maybe, this is a British Jesuit speech, which evasively hints that he did
Which is a ridiculous claim. The Soviet Union could have avoided the war with Germany if only it had ceded the land west of the Urals, but why would any sovereign country do so? The border area was vital for Finnish defense too and had a reasonably large city at the time. Being offered desolate and worthless territories does not make up for that.
I agree it was the reality of the time, but it was nowhere near necessary and as 1941 showed it only set up Finland to attack the Soviets again. To secure Leningrad the Soviet nearly lost Leningrad to the consequences of their own actions. There is a trend noticeable in long term Soviet planning between 1939 and 1941 don't you think
Karelia was not unnecessary. Finland dreamed of having it.
And they could ask for more and better territory and Stalin would have to agree.
ok ok, (why these small countries are so stubborn? ) Well fought, however.
Well you would hope that your crews outlive more than one tank.
even if so. After the war, there were so many unused tanks that it was hardly possible to spend even in a new world war. while there was a shortage of tractors, engineering machines, fuel trucks, repair and evacuation equipment, no APCs
1941 and 1942 were incredibly tragic and steep learning curves for the Red Army, but it remains impressive how they still managed to turn the war and a testament to how sheer numbers can win a war with enough determination. 1941-1945 just meant death on such an unimaginable scale, really depressing to think about it sometimes.
Yes, and here there is a double attitude to Stalin among Russians. Undoubtedly, he is a tyrant and it is not permissible to have such people in power. But the other would not be able to withstand that catastrophe.
Well that depends on how you look at things. The West was doing the right thing in its mind in Serbia. Russia is doing the same in Syria, but the West doesn't consider all the people Russia bombs terrorists, and there are the civilian casualties. Whoever's viewpoint is right depends on your own outlook.
let's look at it like this:
USA bombed Serbia. violating international law just because they don't like their president (I assume, because of independent economy) - bad
USA bombed two ISIL tractors - good, but violated Syrian territory without it's permission, it's act of agression
USA bombed Assad army, - bad. barbarism.
Russia bombed terrorists by asking from Assad, the legitimate leader of Syria and saved it - good. order, saved from terrorists life, Syria did not turn into another Libya
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
Where to begin with this. First of all the Soviet Union did support Germany, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact secured Germany's second front while it focused on Western Europe. Furthermore the Soviet Union provided the Nazis with critical resources they couldn't have gotten elsewhere from 1939 to 1941 such as almost a million tons of oil and hundreds of thousands of tons of rare metals. Without these resources Nazi Germany wouldn't even have been able to sustain its production to invade the Soviet Union. Soviet trade with the Nazis almost ensured their own destruction.
It is wrong to blame the USSR for supporting Germany with resources, since the main source of resources for them was the British and US. Even Canada participated in this, supplying 50% of all nickel. With the outbreak of the war, trade relations between the USSR and Germany ceased immediately, while Britain and the United States did not stop them. And it does not look very good. The involvement of Western countries in the German industry even during the war is so great that it can not be compared with the trade in resources of the USSR.
Britain and the US? No Britain blockaded Germany like they did in WW1 and the US obliged, providing war material to France and Britain. Meanwhile between 1939 and 1941 the Soviet Union supplied anywhere from half or two thirds of all the resources Germany received in 39-41. It was the Soviets who kept trading with the Nazis after 39, not stopping their trade untill the moment Germany invaded. In fact the last resource train famously crossed into Germany mere hours before the invasion.
What involvement was so great? The Soviet resources literally kept the Nazi war machine going for two years while they overran Western Europe and prepared for Barbarossa. Neither the US or the UK played such a vital role. I don't think you understand how critical these resources were.
Hitler violated the terms of Versailles true, but France and Britain felt to be in no position for another war. Given territories is an overstatement. The only thing Britain and France really gave Hitler was the Sudetenland. Neither they nor the Soviet Union did much to prevent the Anschluss or the First Vienna Award, in which neither parties played a part. So no, not whole countries. France and Britain let him take Sudetenland for the same reason the Soviet Union let Hitler take Western Poland with their help, none of them felt to be in any position to wage a war with Germany at their times. Of course hindsight is a wonderful tool.
The letting Hitler attack the Soviets idea is a bit ridiculous. France and Britain put themselves on the line to stop Hitler in Poland and really lost in 1940. There was no secret plan to send Hitler off against the Soviets, which indeed was a fear of Stalin and later a feverish fantasy of some German officers. Both Hitler and Stalin recognized that eventually their ideologies were going to clash sooner rather than later. It was Hitler's original plan after all, he gambled that France and Britain wouldn't have gone to war over Poland. What's more, France and Britain actually sought to ally with the Soviets against Hitler in 1939, but Stalin choose to go with the partnership with Hitler, which came to bite the Soviets in the ass in a major way. France and Britain weren't even considering a war with the Soviets until the Finland War, during which they were already at war with Germany.
There was no help from the USSR for the German seizure of Poland:
Summer 1939: Britain tried to impose on the USSR the obligation to fight against Germany, while remaining free from any obligations
August 1939: Poland announced, that if war will begin, Polish army will rush into Germany and French army will do the same
14 th August: Britain and France avoided any alliance with the USSR, saying Poland should do it first. Poland refused, fearing that USSR with replace it's government to pro-soviet
The USSR was compelled to ask its enemy (Poland) for permission to defend it for the sake of an alliance with the Entente. Poland expressed fears that the Red Army would remain in Poland. Then the Soviet Union proposed to bring there Anglo-French troops, which would ensure that the Red Army did not "accidentally" change the government in Poland. Everyone refused.
Negotiations stalled
Ribbentrop began bombarding the USSR with proposals in fear of getting two fronts
17 August - nonresult negotiations with the Entente. It becomes obvious that they do not want to have any obligations to the USSR (which gives them opportunities, which are not good for the USSR)
21 August - Britain invites Germany to alternative negotiations. Germany agrees. Chamberlain is invited to Berlin.
23 August - Molotov Ribbentrop Pact signed, shocking Britain.
The result was to be the war of Poland, Britain and France against Germany.
1st September - the war started. Polish president left Warsaw
3 st September Britan and France declared war on Germany, but didn't actually participated despite of the fact that they had 3 times more forces against Germany there
They threw leaflets on Germany and ordered balls and cards, so as not to get bored. Betrayal!
10st September The Entente lied to the Polish about the offensive, while French troops were stayed at their positions and not even one British soldier there
11st September - Polish government prepearing to leave country. No acton from USSR.
12 st September French troops are ordered not to advance
17st September. Polish goverment left. USSR announced, that Poland state is not exist.It is dangerous for Ukrainian and Belorussian territories and while no treaties with the Polish are no longer valid, the USSR has the right to protect them.
What we have:
Polish government showed its inconsistency
Germany - bad guys
Entente - cowards and traitors (perhaps I'm exaggerating though)
USSR - not involved by diplomatic terms
Poor Polandball
You're kidding right? The secret pact neatly divided up Poland. While Germany invaded from the west the Soviets did so from the east.
France and Britain wanted an alliance with the Soviets, but the Poles absolutly refused to let Soviet troop on their territory to fight the Germans which is why talks faltered and completely understandable given soviet belligerence towards Poland. Also you keep saying betrayel, yet the Soviets made a deal with Hitler himself to backstab Poland. Its all in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. There is no room for doubt, Hitler and Stalin cooperated to divide Poland and Eastern Europe. That the Allies had such a shameful display of military power does not detract from the fact that Soviet AND German troops held a parade together in Warsaw after conquering Poland. Furthermore the Katyn Massacre showed what the Soviets were really doing, ruthless expansion and attempted national genocide by wiping out the Polish intelligentsia.
The Soviet Union was up to its neck in the diplomacy in the summer of 39, seeing which side would offer them a better deal. As it stands Stalin made a deal with Hitler to wipe out Poland. That the Soviets waited on the Germans to do the bulk of the fighting does not mean that they came in for benevolent reasons.
Yes the Soviets later won the war in Europe, but lets not forget what they did to make it much worse in the first place.
The thing Stalin understood was that he needed more time to postpone the inevitable, which is why the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 seemed like such a good idea. It turned out to be an almost fatal mistake. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact wasn't a mistake for the Germans. It enabled the Germans to focus their whole army on a single front while obtaining critical resources from the Soviets. It prevented a two front war WW1 scenario for the Germans, of course Hitler thought the Pact was a great idea. The Pact was very much evil, because in 1939 Germany was in no way capable to fight a two front war or sustain it. It just strengthened the inevitable blow against the Soviet Union into an almost killing one. Of course that leaves aside the evil of the Soviets attacking the Baltics and Poland, leading to the Katyn Massacre. So yes, the Pact was very much stupid and very much evil.
It was evil for Brits, rushing their combination, in which they defeat two enemies at once. But in the end, Germany was defeated, and the USSR - not.
You're so focussed on Britain you're completely ignoring the fact that Britain put its foot down and tried to stop Hitler in 1939. Meanwhile Stalin gave Hitler the opportunity to wage war undisturbed and actually supported by the Soviets in 1939. Its pretty clear in hindsight which was worse. Hitler was always going to attack the Soviets, imagined British support or otherwise. If Britain really wanted to have the Soviets lose why did they and the US provide lend-lease to support the Soviet war effort?
It isn't normal. But free speech goes so far and Germany is actually quite hawkish on overstepping the bounds of free speech. So the AfD skirts the line of the legally acceptable and crosses far into the socially unacceptable. The AfD is in no way beneficial to the German ruling elite and economy however, because those are pretty pro-EU while the AfD isn't.
Well, it means that it is beneficial to someone from outside Germany. I will not poke a finger.
Well Putin is a big fan of the European populist movements such as those of Le Pen and Wilders, if that's what you're implying in the AfD case.
Its a Red Alert joke In Red Alert Einstein builds a time machine and kills Hitler, leading to a war between the Allies and the Soviets because Nazi-Germany never existed. Actually the role and importance of Hitler as a figurehead is pretty important. None of the early followers of Hitler really had the gift for politics and public speaking he had. It would have been much much harder without Hitler, and of course much of the batgak insane gak of Nazi ideology came directly from Hitler himself and influenced his subordinates who wanted his favor. Without Hitler we wouldn't have seen the Nazi party as it came to power in 1933. Also the Entente played its part in creating Hitler, but so did the Soviet Union and a immense amount of other factors.
Rarely drew attention to the plot of these games. yes, he was a good speaker. but hardly the nazism would not be able to exist without him.
Honestly without Hitler Nazism wouldn't have existed. It would likely have been fascism in the Italian form if Germany would have gone down the far right path. Hitler was pretty crucial to the mass murdering aspects that made Nazism Nazism.
Thanks. You seem to be misreading what Churchill is saying. He is saying that he doesn't know why the Soviets do what they do, only that they do it out of national interest. But he believes that the Soviets will scare off Hitler from expanding further into Eastern Europe because of Soviet national interests in Eastern Europe. Nowhere does he actually state that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is a good idea, just that its actions are an enigma. Plus you have to take into account that Churchill in 1939 could only have been aware of the non-aggression side of the pact, not the secret part dividing up Eastern Europe. That part only came to light in 1946.
uh ... maybe, this is a British Jesuit speech, which evasively hints that he did
No, you're reading too much into it. The date of the speech was far too early to have revealed other aspects of the secret part of the pact. All Churchill cpuld see was a non-aggression pact and the Soviet invasion of Poland out of national interest which he called an "enigma". No where does he voice support.
Which is a ridiculous claim. The Soviet Union could have avoided the war with Germany if only it had ceded the land west of the Urals, but why would any sovereign country do so? The border area was vital for Finnish defense too and had a reasonably large city at the time. Being offered desolate and worthless territories does not make up for that.
I agree it was the reality of the time, but it was nowhere near necessary and as 1941 showed it only set up Finland to attack the Soviets again. To secure Leningrad the Soviet nearly lost Leningrad to the consequences of their own actions. There is a trend noticeable in long term Soviet planning between 1939 and 1941 don't you think
Karelia was not unnecessary. Finland dreamed of having it.
And they could ask for more and better territory and Stalin would have to agree.
ok ok, (why these small countries are so stubborn? ) Well fought, however.
Would he have given better though? Doubtful, seeing as Stalim was harf at work enlarging the SU, not make it smaller.
Small countries tend to be stubborn because history shows that giving in only means they will be back later for more. Plus you're turning over your citizens who live there to another government.
But at least a small consolation is that Finland helped the Soviets prepare to beat the Nazis.
1941 and 1942 were incredibly tragic and steep learning curves for the Red Army, but it remains impressive how they still managed to turn the war and a testament to how sheer numbers can win a war with enough determination. 1941-1945 just meant death on such an unimaginable scale, really depressing to think about it sometimes.
Yes, and here there is a double attitude to Stalin among Russians. Undoubtedly, he is a tyrant and it is not permissible to have such people in power. But the other would not be able to withstand that catastrophe.
Yet there will always remain an important question. If it wasn't for Stalin's horrible mismanagement and purges, would it ever have gotten as bad as it was? Or in other words, was Stalin the only person who could save the Soviet Union from the unprepared mess he had created?
Well that depends on how you look at things. The West was doing the right thing in its mind in Serbia. Russia is doing the same in Syria, but the West doesn't consider all the people Russia bombs terrorists, and there are the civilian casualties. Whoever's viewpoint is right depends on your own outlook.
let's look at it like this:
USA bombed Serbia. violating international law just because they don't like their president (I assume, because of independent economy) - bad
USA bombed two ISIL tractors - good, but violated Syrian territory without it's permission, it's act of agression
USA bombed Assad army, - bad. barbarism.
Russia bombed terrorists by asking from Assad, the legitimate leader of Syria and saved it - good. order, saved from terrorists life, Syria did not turn into another Libya
Serbia was violating plenty of international laws. It was hardly an unprovoked intervention.
The US has only bombed the Syrian Army by mistake really. Its avoiding a direct confrontation with Assad. It wants IS gone.
Assad, a murdering dictator, asked the Russians to help him prosecute a civil war against his own people in which he violated a ton of international laws and killed tens of thousands of his own civilians. For God sake the Russians are helping a man that routinely bombed aid convoys amd hospitals. There is no moral high ground to be claimed from saying Assad represents the 'legitimate' government.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/11 19:55:35
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Yeah, a fact that often is conveniently forgotten is that the USSR only made a treaty with Germany after being refused by the West. With no support from the West, this was the only way to protect the USSR from the Nazis. Of course, in the end Hitler turned out to have a total disregard for treaties and invaded anyways, but that is in hindsight.
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, a fact that often is conveniently forgotten is that the USSR only made a treaty with Germany after being refused by the West. With no support from the West, this was the only way to protect the USSR from the Nazis. Of course, in the end Hitler turned out to have a total disregard for treaties and invaded anyways, but that is in hindsight.
Not really refused. France and Britain were slow and undecisive in negotiations, frustrating Stalin. Hitler offered Stalin a much better deal, but one that also went far beyond self preservation for the Soviets. The Allies lost Stalin because they weren't fully prepared to do business yet, their own affairs weren't in order for it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/11 20:05:05
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Iron_Captain wrote: Yeah, a fact that often is conveniently forgotten is that the USSR only made a treaty with Germany after being refused by the West. With no support from the West, this was the only way to protect the USSR from the Nazis. Of course, in the end Hitler turned out to have a total disregard for treaties and invaded anyways, but that is in hindsight.
lets be real, the Soviet Union didnt have much regard for them either, the Red Army, despite having been nearly decaiptated by purges, was still built almost entirely on an offensive warfare paradigm and not for fighting on its own soil (part of why the USSR's western defenses were so weak in 1941). The Red Army was expected to be fighting in an offensive capacity (which in some ways bore fruit later in the war) outside its own borders, it was a matter of "who will break this first", rather than "*will* someone break this?".
The USSR also wasnt exactly friendly to Western states pre-war. There are reasons for this, both valid and invalid on both sides, but the Western nations generally had no more reason to see the USSR more favorably than the Germans (and, to be fair, the USSR didnt have much more reason to like them more than the Germans either), and Stalin was almost supernaturally paranoid of the British.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Britain and the US? No Britain blockaded Germany like they did in WW1 and the US obliged, providing war material to France and Britain. Meanwhile between 1939 and 1941 the Soviet Union supplied anywhere from half or two thirds of all the resources Germany received in 39-41. It was the Soviets who kept trading with the Nazis after 39, not stopping their trade untill the moment Germany invaded. In fact the last resource train famously crossed into Germany mere hours before the invasion.
What involvement was so great? The Soviet resources literally kept the Nazi war machine going for two years while they overran Western Europe and prepared for Barbarossa. Neither the US or the UK played such a vital role. I don't think you understand how critical these resources were.
The entire economy of Germany was built by Western capital. And it continued to grow when the Nazis came to power. Continued when Germany began to attack everyone. They continued to keep it's economy when the war was already in full swing. Banks of Germany - Rockefeller's, oil - Standard Oil, aviation industry - built by Americans, General Motors, ITT. With all these facts, one can not blame the USSR for trading in resources. Germany built superheavy tanks without these resources, so there is no reason to say that without them there would be no military production.
The West provided the economy of Hitler, fuu what a shame.
You're kidding right? The secret pact neatly divided up Poland. While Germany invaded from the west the Soviets did so from the east.
You say that as if Poland were torn in half. No. One side was a real Poland, and the other was a previously captured territory. this was recognized by the League of Nations. But now the West decided to rewrite history in order to justify its aggression. Defending these falsifications, you help imperialism!
France and Britain wanted an alliance with the Soviets, but the Poles absolutly refused to let Soviet troop on their territory to fight the Germans which is why talks faltered and completely understandable given soviet belligerence towards Poland.
What they offered did not suit the USSR at all and threatened its security. Britain wanted the USSR to get involved in the war, without giving any obligations and sitting on its own land. And since it would have no obligations, Britain had the right to declare war on the USSR later. What was unacceptable for the Soviet. The cunning policy of Britain once again caused others to suffer
Also you keep saying betrayel, yet the Soviets made a deal with Hitler himself to backstab Poland. Its all in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. There is no room for doubt, Hitler and Stalin cooperated to divide Poland and Eastern Europe.
This is the result of difficult negotiations with Britain. Blame Chamberlain for what happened.
And do not use expression "backstabbing" for two reason:
1) For "backstabbing", you had to have a valid agreements violated.
2) You have to act before Poland state is ceased
That the Allies had such a shameful display of military power does not detract from the fact that Soviet AND German troops held a parade together in Warsaw after conquering Poland.
You are an another victim of Goebbels propaganda.
It was a Brest (modern Belarus). The German troops were stationed there and they had to give the Brest to Soviets. after the negotiations, the Germans agreed to leave. Guderian suggested holding a joint parade, but this was refused by the commander Krivoshein. And the Soviet troops were angry. Then they decided to hold a ceremony of transferring the city, where Soviet troops acted as spectators. Krivoshein wanted to shake Guderian's hand, but he refused to leave the small podium and stood on it. Then Krivoshein had to stand beside him. And Guderian detained him with a conversation while the photographers shoot them.
Furthermore the Katyn Massacre showed what the Soviets were really doing, ruthless expansion and attempted national genocide by wiping out the Polish intelligentsia.
this is a fake, which Khrushchev came up with for the de-Stalinization campaign. Later faked documents found by Gorbachev cried and asked for forgiveness from the west, and then Yeltsin began to deal with them. They all grabbed for any lie, just to gak the Soviet Union. The figure of 20 thousand shot Polish officers is impossible. a little more than 4 thousand Polish officers were captured after Red Army er... entered the territory formerly owned by the Polish. By the time of Germany's attack on the USSR, the fate of prisoners of war was watched by Britain, so that she could not fail to notice if they were shot by the Soviets. after the war with Germany started, the Soviets began the formation of the Polish army and amnestied the captured Poles. Because of this, Hitler decided to fabricate a provocation, which is now known as the Katyn tragedy. Later, this fabrication was used by the Polish government in exile to break off relations with the USSR. In the USSR, they could not understand who had "shot" Polish officer prisoners and had begun an investigation after the Germans had driven out of this land. On January 26, 1944, a report was given that showed the falsity of the accusations made by the nazis. In addition, in 1939-40 the Katyn was a public place where people were constantly walking and if there was a mass execution there would have to be witnesses. but with the appearance of the Germans, this place was forbidden to visit and there was an inscription that people who had entered here would be shot
from the declared by the Germans witnesses of execution the commission has found only one. others died or were in German captivity. He said that he had not seen any execution and that it was impossible, since Katyn was at that time available to everyone. And to sign his testimony, he was beaten by Germans. The Germans had insufficiently collected signatures of testimony and they offered a reward for the testimony about the execution, but no one came. An analysis of the things found on the corpses showed that this was done by the Germans, since at that time they were on this site. Also, the holes from the bullets correspond to German weapons, and not Soviet. Finally, an end to falsification is possible only when there is no total control of the West over history
The Soviet Union was up to its neck in the diplomacy in the summer of 39, seeing which side would offer them a better deal. As it stands Stalin made a deal with Hitler to wipe out Poland. That the Soviets waited on the Germans to do the bulk of the fighting does not mean that they came in for benevolent reasons.
Yes the Soviets later won the war in Europe, but lets not forget what they did to make it much worse in the first place.
Other options were worse:
1) Germany offered the Polish to attack the USSR together. Poland declined. if it had not refused, the USSR would have been crushed, and then nazis would have attacked the rest
2) The USSR attacks Germany and repeats history as in the WW1, not profitable for the USSR, when it becomes dependent on Britain and, possibly, suffering defeat from Germany
3) Entente concludes an agreement with Germany. Imperialism wins.
What best could happen:
The Entente concludes an agreement with the USSR and helps Poland by entering into a real war. The USSR helps the Entente without interference in the Polish cause. Even if the Polish fell, we could have won by common efforts. But Britain wanted to gak the Soviet Union and prevent it from intensifying
What could happen after the Pact:
Poland is defeated, but the Anglo-French troops seize Germany from behind. Hitler is caught under the bridge. The army of Germany surrenders. Poland was rebuilt, but without the territories captured in 1920. The USSR either prepares for war with the entente, or is friends with them. or both simulateusly.
Honestly without Hitler Nazism wouldn't have existed. It would likely have been fascism in the Italian form if Germany would have gone down the far right path. Hitler was pretty crucial to the mass murdering aspects that made Nazism Nazism.
I doubt the importance of just one person while there is an ideology. there could be a smaller scale, but still...
No, you're reading too much into it. The date of the speech was far too early to have revealed other aspects of the secret part of the pact. All Churchill cpuld see was a non-aggression pact and the Soviet invasion of Poland out of national interest which he called an "enigma". No where does he voice support.
it would be interesting to know whether there is an explanation of his speech in his books and whether the intelligence of Britain about the secret part was known. if there is time, I will search for
Small countries tend to be stubborn because history shows that giving in only means they will be back later for more. Plus you're turning over your citizens who live there to another government.
But many times it happened that small countries disappeared instantly
Yet there will always remain an important question. If it wasn't for Stalin's horrible mismanagement and purges, would it ever have gotten as bad as it was? Or in other words, was Stalin the only person who could save the Soviet Union from the unprepared mess he had created?
If Stalin had been removed just before the war, then perhaps the war would have lost.
If another came earlier (for example, Kirov?) Without terror. people who are not afraid for their actions and are active. alive officers and generals. alive engineers. I think the army would be stronger than the decapitated
And if there was a Trotsky, then we all would live in a barracks
Serbia was violating plenty of international laws. It was hardly an unprovoked intervention.
The US has only bombed the Syrian Army by mistake really. Its avoiding a direct confrontation with Assad. It wants IS gone.
Assad, a murdering dictator, asked the Russians to help him prosecute a civil war against his own people in which he violated a ton of international laws and killed tens of thousands of his own civilians. For God sake the Russians are helping a man that routinely bombed aid convoys amd hospitals. There is no moral high ground to be claimed from saying Assad represents the 'legitimate' government.
so, for example, if it were in the 1800s US:
1) Russia in Syria
The Confederates revolted and attacked. Britain threatens Lincoln that he must leave and not kill pregnant southerners from gatlings and cannons. Britain is drowning in the US fleet. Confederates advance. Britain cries about the war crimes of Lincoln. Part of the confederates turns into devils and cooks people in oil. The devils win, only some of the cities that are cut off from each other remain surrounded. Lincoln is accused of killing civilians and announces that instead of the US there must be a British colony. And Lincoln asks for help from Russia. The Russian fleet sails, chases the British fleet, destroys devils and saves Lincoln and the United States. Britain cries about war crimes of Russia.
2) US in Serbia
Imagine that after the civil war, the US has only a few states left. In Canada, the crisis, crowds of Frenchmen are walking with weapons. And then a lot of Frenchmen, inclined against the United States, penetrate into the Vermont. there is an incident that is blown out in the world as the genocide of the French. Britain orders the US to withdraw from Vermont and begins a "humanitarian intervention." Bomb from the ships of the US cities and destroy the US Army in Vermont. The Republic of Vermont was created. Britain is the holy savior of the world. The US is an infernal tyrant and a murderer. The new Hampshire also decided to secede. Suddenly, the people of America "have received sight" and from the beloved Lincoln turned into a tyrant. and he was tried. During the trial, Lincoln died somehow. The United States is turning into a British colony.
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
Britain and the US? No Britain blockaded Germany like they did in WW1 and the US obliged, providing war material to France and Britain. Meanwhile between 1939 and 1941 the Soviet Union supplied anywhere from half or two thirds of all the resources Germany received in 39-41. It was the Soviets who kept trading with the Nazis after 39, not stopping their trade untill the moment Germany invaded. In fact the last resource train famously crossed into Germany mere hours before the invasion.
What involvement was so great? The Soviet resources literally kept the Nazi war machine going for two years while they overran Western Europe and prepared for Barbarossa. Neither the US or the UK played such a vital role. I don't think you understand how critical these resources were.
The entire economy of Germany was built by Western capital. And it continued to grow when the Nazis came to power. Continued when Germany began to attack everyone. They continued to keep it's economy when the war was already in full swing. Banks of Germany - Rockefeller's, oil - Standard Oil, aviation industry - built by Americans, General Motors, ITT. With all these facts, one can not blame the USSR for trading in resources. Germany built superheavy tanks without these resources, so there is no reason to say that without them there would be no military production.
The West provided the economy of Hitler, fuu what a shame.
Not necessarily. A part of Germany was rebuild with Western capital but a lot of those efforts were also lost during the Great Depression. What individual businesses did was not really under the control of the Allied governments however, and it was very much frowned upon. Meanwhile German industrialists were the key to German war production, not foreign business. Plus most of the German preparation for war was build up by massive German borrowing abroad, not foreign help.
And yes, the Soviets can be blamed for trading those resources, because by that point it became crystal clear that Hitler was turning towards a world war. So the Soviets were helping Hitler defeat his enemies knowing that eventually he would turn against them. And no, Soviet resources were critical to the Nazi war effort, that's what it means when they account for 50%-66% of total imports. That is absolutely vital and without it German production would have been halved or even reduced by 2/3rd which is a massive number.
The Soviets provided Hitler with the resources needed for the war. Just like the Soviets had provided the Reichswehr with secret locations to do weapons and tactics testing that violated Versailles. So yes, we have Allied economic support that mostly stops after 39, versus Soviet resource support for the Nazi war effort and military support which had allowed the Wehrmacht to much more quickly develop. So both the Soviets and Allies play a part, but only the Soviets went so far as to ally up with Hitler.
You're kidding right? The secret pact neatly divided up Poland. While Germany invaded from the west the Soviets did so from the east.
You say that as if Poland were torn in half. No. One side was a real Poland, and the other was a previously captured territory. this was recognized by the League of Nations. But now the West decided to rewrite history in order to justify its aggression. Defending these falsifications, you help imperialism!
Because Poland was torn in half. Both sides were the 'real' Poland. Furthermore the attempt at a rebuttal completely ignores German-Soviet military cooperation and the Katyn massacre. There was nothing excusable about the Soviet invasion of Poland. Here is the part of the secret clause, emphasis mine, note the use of "areas belonging to the Polish state":
On the occasion of the signature of the Nonaggression Pact between the German Reich and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics the undersigned plenipotentiaries of each of the two parties discussed in strictly confidential conversations the question of the boundary of their respective spheres of influence in Eastern Europe. These conversations led to the following conclusions:
1. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilna area is recognized by each party.
2. In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narew, Vistula, and San.
The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish state and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.
In any event both Governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.
France and Britain wanted an alliance with the Soviets, but the Poles absolutly refused to let Soviet troop on their territory to fight the Germans which is why talks faltered and completely understandable given soviet belligerence towards Poland.
What they offered did not suit the USSR at all and threatened its security. Britain wanted the USSR to get involved in the war, without giving any obligations and sitting on its own land. And since it would have no obligations, Britain had the right to declare war on the USSR later. What was unacceptable for the Soviet. The cunning policy of Britain once again caused others to suffer
It didn't threaten Soviet security unless stopping Hitler in 39 would. But you're right it did not suit Stalin at the time, which is why he went for the Pact. Britain did not want the SU to get involved without any obligations, Britain actually agreed on the Soviet plan on how to react to German aggression. It failed because Polish disagreement was the stumbling block, but they also ran out of time. And Britain had the right to declare war on the Soviets later? What? You actually think they wanted that guarantee in the tripartite talks? No, the tripartite talks would lead to a military alliance with France and Britain instead of the Germans, much more reliable partners as the UK was in no position to actually wage war against the Soviets. This was just Stalin's paranoia.
Also the "cunning" policy of Britain? Britain didn't force the Soviets to sign a pact with Hitler. That was their own choice.
Also you keep saying betrayel, yet the Soviets made a deal with Hitler himself to backstab Poland. Its all in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. There is no room for doubt, Hitler and Stalin cooperated to divide Poland and Eastern Europe.
This is the result of difficult negotiations with Britain. Blame Chamberlain for what happened.
And do not use expression "backstabbing" for two reason:
1) For "backstabbing", you had to have a valid agreements violated.
2) You have to act before Poland state is ceased
No, just no. Stalin could have refused the France-UK alliance without getting into bed with Hitler. I fully blame Stalin for that decision.
Also yes backstabbing is accurate because the Polish state was defending itself against Hitler. When the Soviets invaded Poland, they violated the 1932 Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact, furthermore Poland never surrendered, so the Polish state didn't cease to be before the Soviet invasion, which is why some 5000 Soviet troops died fighting. So I think back stab is pretty accurate, seeing as how it actually fits within your two reasons.
That the Allies had such a shameful display of military power does not detract from the fact that Soviet AND German troops held a parade together in Warsaw after conquering Poland.
You are an another victim of Goebbels propaganda.
It was a Brest (modern Belarus). The German troops were stationed there and they had to give the Brest to Soviets. after the negotiations, the Germans agreed to leave. Guderian suggested holding a joint parade, but this was refused by the commander Krivoshein. And the Soviet troops were angry. Then they decided to hold a ceremony of transferring the city, where Soviet troops acted as spectators. Krivoshein wanted to shake Guderian's hand, but he refused to leave the small podium and stood on it. Then Krivoshein had to stand beside him. And Guderian detained him with a conversation while the photographers shoot them.
A victim of Goebbels' propaganda? Are you kidding? Knock off the accusations. There is clear historical evidence behind all this.
Yes, I mis-remembered, tt was a victory parade in Brest-Litovsk. The reason Krivoshein didn't want to let the Soviet troops parade was because the Soviet army looked like a mess next to the Germans and he was very conscious of that. It was friendly enough. The fact that the parade even happened showed that the Soviets and Germans were cooperating. There were possibly other parades, but the Brest-Litovsk one is the best documented.
Furthermore the Katyn Massacre showed what the Soviets were really doing, ruthless expansion and attempted national genocide by wiping out the Polish intelligentsia.
this is a fake, which Khrushchev came up with for the de-Stalinization campaign. Later faked documents found by Gorbachev cried and asked for forgiveness from the west, and then Yeltsin began to deal with them. They all grabbed for any lie, just to gak the Soviet Union. The figure of 20 thousand shot Polish officers is impossible. a little more than 4 thousand Polish officers were captured after Red Army er... entered the territory formerly owned by the Polish. By the time of Germany's attack on the USSR, the fate of prisoners of war was watched by Britain, so that she could not fail to notice if they were shot by the Soviets. after the war with Germany started, the Soviets began the formation of the Polish army and amnestied the captured Poles. Because of this, Hitler decided to fabricate a provocation, which is now known as the Katyn tragedy. Later, this fabrication was used by the Polish government in exile to break off relations with the USSR. In the USSR, they could not understand who had "shot" Polish officer prisoners and had begun an investigation after the Germans had driven out of this land. On January 26, 1944, a report was given that showed the falsity of the accusations made by the nazis. In addition, in 1939-40 the Katyn was a public place where people were constantly walking and if there was a mass execution there would have to be witnesses. but with the appearance of the Germans, this place was forbidden to visit and there was an inscription that people who had entered here would be shot
from the declared by the Germans witnesses of execution the commission has found only one. others died or were in German captivity. He said that he had not seen any execution and that it was impossible, since Katyn was at that time available to everyone. And to sign his testimony, he was beaten by Germans. The Germans had insufficiently collected signatures of testimony and they offered a reward for the testimony about the execution, but no one came. An analysis of the things found on the corpses showed that this was done by the Germans, since at that time they were on this site. Also, the holes from the bullets correspond to German weapons, and not Soviet. Finally, an end to falsification is possible only when there is no total control of the West over history
Really, you're calling the Katyn Massacre fake? I think I'm done replying after being accused of falling to Goebbels' propaganda and now this. I was enjoying the historical debate even though it was obvious we were never going to agree. But it has crossed the line of what is acceptable to me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 10:28:44
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Not necessarily. A part of Germany was rebuild with Western capital but a lot of those efforts were also lost during the Great Depression. What individual businesses did was not really under the control of the Allied governments however, and it was very much frowned upon. Meanwhile German industrialists were the key to German war production, not foreign business. Plus most of the German preparation for war was build up by massive German borrowing abroad, not foreign help.
And yes, the Soviets can be blamed for trading those resources, because by that point it became crystal clear that Hitler was turning towards a world war. So the Soviets were helping Hitler defeat his enemies knowing that eventually he would turn against them. And no, Soviet resources were critical to the Nazi war effort, that's what it means when they account for 50%-66% of total imports. That is absolutely vital and without it German production would have been halved or even reduced by 2/3rd which is a massive number.
The Soviets provided Hitler with the resources needed for the war. Just like the Soviets had provided the Reichswehr with secret locations to do weapons and tactics testing that violated Versailles. So yes, we have Allied economic support that mostly stops after 39, versus Soviet resource support for the Nazi war effort and military support which had allowed the Wehrmacht to much more quickly develop. So both the Soviets and Allies play a part, but only the Soviets went so far as to ally up with Hitler.
Well, how could the Germans buy these resources if they had nothing to pay? Western companies gave loans to which Germany bought resources or could exchange them for others. Again, this is all in the German economy, not only built by the West, but also owned by the West, with a guarantee of capital preservation. It is impossible to imagine the USSR as supplying Hitler with such facts.
Because Poland was torn in half. Both sides were the 'real' Poland. Furthermore the attempt at a rebuttal completely ignores German-Soviet military cooperation and the Katyn massacre. There was nothing excusable about the Soviet invasion of Poland. Here is the part of the secret clause, emphasis mine, note the use of "areas belonging to the Polish state":
It was already uncontrolled wasteland without government, when Soviet entered ex-Poland territory. The Polish troops were ordered to surrender. The inflation from this as the reason for the defeat of the Polish is an unsuccessful attempt to hide the fact that the Polish was captured because of the betrayal of the Entente.
It didn't threaten Soviet security unless stopping Hitler in 39 would. But you're right it did not suit Stalin at the time, which is why he went for the Pact. Britain did not want the SU to get involved without any obligations, Britain actually agreed on the Soviet plan on how to react to German aggression. It failed because Polish disagreement was the stumbling block, but they also ran out of time. And Britain had the right to declare war on the Soviets later? What? You actually think they wanted that guarantee in the tripartite talks? No, the tripartite talks would lead to a military alliance with France and Britain instead of the Germans, much more reliable partners as the UK was in no position to actually wage war against the Soviets. This was just Stalin's paranoia.
It was not caused by paranoia. Stalin thought strategically well enough. Britain was quite aggressive towards the USSR and at the same time refused to bind itself with obligations. And why did she start alternative talks with Germany? To attack the Stalin together? Mmm?
Also the "cunning" policy of Britain? Britain didn't force the Soviets to sign a pact with Hitler. That was their own choice.
This was rather unusual and could be caused only by a dangerous situation that threatened the security of the USSR. Otherwise, there would be no such haste.
When the Soviets invaded Poland, they violated the 1932 Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact, furthermore Poland never surrendered, so the Polish state didn't cease to be before the Soviet invasion, which is why some 5000 Soviet troops died fighting.
The Polish army had no right to resist. she had to surrender. Officers who ordered to open fire did so at their own will. also, the gendarmes and the militia fired, who took advantage of the fact that they did not obey the command of the army
And 5000 is a killed and wounded number. Where do you get information from?
A victim of Goebbels' propaganda? Are you kidding? Knock off the accusations. There is clear historical evidence behind all this.
Yes, I mis-remembered, tt was a victory parade in Brest-Litovsk. The reason Krivoshein didn't want to let the Soviet troops parade was because the Soviet army looked like a mess next to the Germans and he was very conscious of that. It was friendly enough. The fact that the parade even happened showed that the Soviets and Germans were cooperating. There were possibly other parades, but the Brest-Litovsk one is the best documented.
Not a Warsaw. Not a parade. There were no "other parades". unfounded propaganda
What is for certain is that Polish officers were shot.
It is known that they were shot from German weapons.
It is known that the found bimetallic cases were manufactured in Germany after 1939
It is not known when exactly they were shot
It is known that the declared "NKVD troika" could not shoot them, because all NKVD troikas were liquidated in 1938
It is known that at that time prisoners in the USSR could not keep the insignias and documents with them bceause it held in other place to not be used for escape or other actions
We know that the Germans started it all. We know that it was against the USSR.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 12:00:33
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
Britain and the US? No Britain blockaded Germany like they did in WW1 and the US obliged, providing war material to France and Britain. Meanwhile between 1939 and 1941 the Soviet Union supplied anywhere from half or two thirds of all the resources Germany received in 39-41. It was the Soviets who kept trading with the Nazis after 39, not stopping their trade untill the moment Germany invaded. In fact the last resource train famously crossed into Germany mere hours before the invasion.
What involvement was so great? The Soviet resources literally kept the Nazi war machine going for two years while they overran Western Europe and prepared for Barbarossa. Neither the US or the UK played such a vital role. I don't think you understand how critical these resources were.
The entire economy of Germany was built by Western capital. And it continued to grow when the Nazis came to power. Continued when Germany began to attack everyone. They continued to keep it's economy when the war was already in full swing. Banks of Germany - Rockefeller's, oil - Standard Oil, aviation industry - built by Americans, General Motors, ITT. With all these facts, one can not blame the USSR for trading in resources. Germany built superheavy tanks without these resources, so there is no reason to say that without them there would be no military production. The West provided the economy of Hitler, fuu what a shame.
Not necessarily. A part of Germany was rebuild with Western capital but a lot of those efforts were also lost during the Great Depression. What individual businesses did was not really under the control of the Allied governments however, and it was very much frowned upon. Meanwhile German industrialists were the key to German war production, not foreign business. Plus most of the German preparation for war was build up by massive German borrowing abroad, not foreign help.
German industrialists that never could have functioned without all the Western aid they received prior to 1939. And it wasn't just German industrialists either. Opel for example is a company that was absolutely critical to the German war effort (it produced trucks, aircraft parts, torpedoes and land mines), but who was the owner of Opel? General Motors. Senior executives of General Motors even received awards from the Nazi government for their contributions. Fact is that the Nazis would never have been able to invade Poland, France or the USSR without General Motors. And Opel is just a single example. The Nazis would never have been able to build their war machine without aid from the West. And letting someone borrow money is also a form of aid. Also, what businesses do and which countries and individuals they trade with was and is very much under the control of governments. Ever heard of the word 'sanctions'? No one cared to put sanctions on the Nazis until Nazis attacked them. Dealing with the Nazis was way too profitable, and no one, either in the West or in the USSR, wanted to upset them.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And yes, the Soviets can be blamed for trading those resources, because by that point it became crystal clear that Hitler was turning towards a world war. So the Soviets were helping Hitler defeat his enemies knowing that eventually he would turn against them. And no, Soviet resources were critical to the Nazi war effort, that's what it means when they account for 50%-66% of total imports. That is absolutely vital and without it German production would have been halved or even reduced by 2/3rd which is a massive number.
The Soviets provided Hitler with the resources needed for the war. Just like the Soviets had provided the Reichswehr with secret locations to do weapons and tactics testing that violated Versailles. So yes, we have Allied economic support that mostly stops after 39, versus Soviet resource support for the Nazi war effort and military support which had allowed the Wehrmacht to much more quickly develop. So both the Soviets and Allies play a part, but only the Soviets went so far as to ally up with Hitler.
It was not an alliance. It was a non-aggression treaty. If the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty was an alliance then the Munich treaty could also be considered an alliance. That is not what an alliance means. Simply coming to an understanding and signing a treaty with another country doesn't mean that you suddenly are in an alliance with them. Also, the Soviets were hardly the only country that supported Nazi Germany by trading with them. The Netherlands also traded with Germany right until the invasion, and neutral countries like Sweden and Switzerland continued trading with the Nazis until the very end. Fact is that everyone wanted to appease Hitler and made deals with the Nazis until the Nazis came for them (and sometimes even after, see for example the US companies that continued to do business with the Nazis through German subsidiaries throughout the war). The Allies and the Poles helped the Germans with the partition of Czechoslovakia. The Soviets helped the Germans in the partition of Poland. The Soviets in this regard are no different from the West. That Soviet trade was more critical to Germany than for example Dutch or British trade is a logical consequence of the fact that the Soviet Union is a hundred times larger than those countries (yet being communist, had a lot less trading partners) and therefore simply had more resources available for trade with Germany as well as a result of the fact that Germany by 1939 did not have a whole lot of trading partners left. Blaming the Soviets more than blaming the British, Dutch or Swedish is unfair and reeks of Cold War propaganda. Quite frankly, I think that any blaming in this regard is unfair. Blaming people is easy with hindsight, but people at that time did not have knowledge of what Hitler and the Nazis would do in the future.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/12/12 13:39:38
Britain and the US? No Britain blockaded Germany like they did in WW1 and the US obliged, providing war material to France and Britain. Meanwhile between 1939 and 1941 the Soviet Union supplied anywhere from half or two thirds of all the resources Germany received in 39-41. It was the Soviets who kept trading with the Nazis after 39, not stopping their trade untill the moment Germany invaded. In fact the last resource train famously crossed into Germany mere hours before the invasion.
What involvement was so great? The Soviet resources literally kept the Nazi war machine going for two years while they overran Western Europe and prepared for Barbarossa. Neither the US or the UK played such a vital role. I don't think you understand how critical these resources were.
The entire economy of Germany was built by Western capital. And it continued to grow when the Nazis came to power. Continued when Germany began to attack everyone. They continued to keep it's economy when the war was already in full swing. Banks of Germany - Rockefeller's, oil - Standard Oil, aviation industry - built by Americans, General Motors, ITT. With all these facts, one can not blame the USSR for trading in resources. Germany built superheavy tanks without these resources, so there is no reason to say that without them there would be no military production.
The West provided the economy of Hitler, fuu what a shame.
Not necessarily. A part of Germany was rebuild with Western capital but a lot of those efforts were also lost during the Great Depression. What individual businesses did was not really under the control of the Allied governments however, and it was very much frowned upon. Meanwhile German industrialists were the key to German war production, not foreign business. Plus most of the German preparation for war was build up by massive German borrowing abroad, not foreign help.
German industrialists that never could have functioned without all the Western aid they received prior to 1939. And it wasn't just German industrialists either. Opel for example is a company that was absolutely critical to the German war effort (it produced trucks, aircraft parts, torpedoes and land mines), but who was the owner of Opel? General Motors. Senior executives of General Motors even received awards from the Nazi government for their contributions. Fact is that the Nazis would never have been able to invade Poland, France or the USSR without General Motors. And Opel is just a single example. The Nazis would never have been able to build their war machine without aid from the West. And letting someone borrow money is also a form of aid. Also, what businesses do and which countries and individuals they trade with was and is very much under the control of governments. Ever heard of the word 'sanctions'? No one cared to put sanctions on the Nazis until Nazis attacked them. Dealing with the Nazis was way too profitable, and no one, either in the West or in the USSR, wanted to upset them.
Well international trade was the norm, even the Soviets participated in trade and with Germany as well. If you are aware that General Motors owned Opel, you must also be aware that there it is debate to what extent General Motors had active control over Opel once WW2 started. The awards they got were pre-39 for their service. So yes, Western economic cooperation helped once the Nazis decided to switch those factories towards war production. But operations in Germany by these companies also goes back a lot further than 1933. Soviet trading relations with Germany for example accounted for almost a quarter, until Hitler came to power and dropped off. After 39 they significantly increased again. If its about economic cooperation the Soviets aren't innocent either. And you would have to have a debate of business versus state trading with Germany.
On the other hand I could state that without all the secret German army preparations in the Soviet Union, the Germans might not have been as prepared for war in 39 as they had been. The Soviets actively helped Germany to break the Treaty of Versailles by for example helping the Germans develop their tank designs that led to the Panzerkampfwagen family
I have indeed heard of sanctions, just as you will have heard between the difference of lending from private versus state entities. Plus most of the borrowed money or trade deficit was with countries outside of the Allied sphere, not Allied countries themselves. But international economic sanctions weren't nearly as common back in the first half of the 20th century and countries were often afraid to use them so as not to provoke war. Not even the Soviets sanctioned Germany.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And yes, the Soviets can be blamed for trading those resources, because by that point it became crystal clear that Hitler was turning towards a world war. So the Soviets were helping Hitler defeat his enemies knowing that eventually he would turn against them. And no, Soviet resources were critical to the Nazi war effort, that's what it means when they account for 50%-66% of total imports. That is absolutely vital and without it German production would have been halved or even reduced by 2/3rd which is a massive number.
The Soviets provided Hitler with the resources needed for the war. Just like the Soviets had provided the Reichswehr with secret locations to do weapons and tactics testing that violated Versailles. So yes, we have Allied economic support that mostly stops after 39, versus Soviet resource support for the Nazi war effort and military support which had allowed the Wehrmacht to much more quickly develop. So both the Soviets and Allies play a part, but only the Soviets went so far as to ally up with Hitler.
It was not an alliance. It was a non-aggression treaty. If the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty was an alliance then the Munich treaty could also be considered an alliance. That is not what an alliance means. Simply coming to an understanding and signing a treaty with another country doesn't mean that you suddenly are in an alliance with them.
Also, the Soviets were hardly the only country that supported Nazi Germany by trading with them. The Netherlands also traded with Germany right until the invasion, and neutral countries like Sweden and Switzerland continued trading with the Nazis until the very end. Fact is that everyone wanted to appease Hitler and made deals with the Nazis until the Nazis came for them (and sometimes even after, see for example the US companies that continued to do business with the Nazis through German subsidiaries throughout the war). The Allies and the Poles helped the Germans with the partition of Czechoslovakia. The Soviets helped the Germans in the partition of Poland. The Soviets in this regard are no different from the West. That Soviet trade was more critical to Germany than for example Dutch or British trade is a logical consequence of the fact that the Soviet Union is a hundred times larger than those countries (yet being communist, had a lot less trading partners) and therefore simply had more resources available for trade with Germany as well as a result of the fact that Germany by 1939 did not have a whole lot of trading partners left. Blaming the Soviets more than blaming the British, Dutch or Swedish is unfair and reeks of Cold War propaganda. Quite frankly, I think that any blaming in this regard is unfair. Blaming people is easy with hindsight, but people at that time did not have knowledge of what Hitler and the Nazis would do in the future.
It was by far not just a non-aggression pact. Most non-aggression pacts don't have secret clauses about a military campaign by both parties to divide up a third country. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact divided up Europe and allied Hitler and Stalin in the destruction of Poland. The Munich Agreement never went that far, its disingenuous to say they were equal treaties. An alliance at its most basic is the act of allying, Hitler and Stalin did exactly that against Poland. It was a temporary military alliance with a specific goal, not just a non-aggression pact.
Of course the Netherlands did, but the Netherlands had declared itself neutral in any event. Stalin with the provision of critical war supplies and the invasion of Poland actively sided with Hitler. The position of neutral countries is important to consider. Sweden for example would have certainly been invaded to gain acces to their critical war resources. Yet Hitler was in no position to invade the Soviet Union in 1939. Stalin made the deal to supply Hitler, knowing that Hitler while not strong enough would eventually turn on him. It was just stupid to include a trade deal by Stalin.
Again, its disingenuous to state that the Munich Agreement and the invasion of Poland are equal. Czechoslovakia grudgingly accepted the Munich Agreement because the alternative was to face war and the destruction of the entire country, plus neither the Soviets nor the French were prepared to help the Czechs in a war or in any real state to help in the case of the Soviets. Stalin was mostly angry for not being invited. Meanwhile Poland was an actual invasion during a war. Nothing was requested, because what was required was not handing over some territory, it was the destruction of the entire state and the elimination of its people by the Germans and the national identity by the Soviets through actions such as at Katyn. So yes, in that sense the Soviets were very different from the West.
I'm not saying this makes the Soviets any worse than the others for trading with Hitler, but the fact of the matter is that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact secret clause did make the Soviets a lot worse than the other countries. Trading was in the end just stupid for countries such as the Netherlands and the Soviet Union, but the Soviets suffered a lot more because of it. I'm also not blaming the Soviets directly for the non-aggression part of the Pact, Stalin imagined France and Germany would murder each other. Yet what I can blame the Soviets for is engaging in the exact same type of activities Hitler engaged in by forcefully annexing countries, then going on the systematically eliminate what Stalin saw as the enemy in those populations. That part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is frequently forgotten because Hitler went on to do far worse things.
So no, I don't blame the Soviets for trading and neither for not wanting to go to war at the time. Of course in hindsight but even at the time in 39 Stalin knew those resources would help his future enemy grow stronger.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 15:48:48
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think I'm done replying after being accused of falling to Goebbels' propaganda and now this. I was enjoying the historical debate even though it was obvious we were never going to agree. But it has crossed the line of what is acceptable to me.[/b]
It was not necessary to use manipulations such as Katyn and "Poland Invaded by USSR". You first started moving topic on this subject and spawned a dispute.
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think I'm done replying after being accused of falling to Goebbels' propaganda and now this. I was enjoying the historical debate even though it was obvious we were never going to agree. But it has crossed the line of what is acceptable to me.[/b]
It was not necessary to use manipulations such as Katyn and "Poland Invaded by USSR". You first started moving topic on this subject and spawned a dispute.
Poland WAS invaded by the USSR, no matter how hard you try to spin it.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think I'm done replying after being accused of falling to Goebbels' propaganda and now this. I was enjoying the historical debate even though it was obvious we were never going to agree. But it has crossed the line of what is acceptable to me.[/b]
It was not necessary to use manipulations such as Katyn and "Poland Invaded by USSR". You first started moving topic on this subject and spawned a dispute.
The reality is that the Soviet Union invaded Poland and perpetrated the Katyn Massacre. Denying these two basic facts calling them "manipulation", "Goebbels' propaganda" and "fake" is crossing the line to me, because its engaging in serious unhistorical revisionism. The great irony is that the Katyn Massacre wasn't made up by Goebbels for once, the Soviets actually comitted it, it wasn't even Nazi propaganda, just reality. These two events were clear consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which we were already discussing.
A dispute was spawned because you accused me of being "another victim of Goebbels propaganda" and called Katyn "fake" and orchastrated by the Germans. There just isn't much to debate on after that. Because it moves the debate away from the historical into unhistorical revisionism not even the Soviet state and Russia kept engaging in.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 18:08:26
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Britain and the US? No Britain blockaded Germany like they did in WW1 and the US obliged, providing war material to France and Britain. Meanwhile between 1939 and 1941 the Soviet Union supplied anywhere from half or two thirds of all the resources Germany received in 39-41. It was the Soviets who kept trading with the Nazis after 39, not stopping their trade untill the moment Germany invaded. In fact the last resource train famously crossed into Germany mere hours before the invasion.
What involvement was so great? The Soviet resources literally kept the Nazi war machine going for two years while they overran Western Europe and prepared for Barbarossa. Neither the US or the UK played such a vital role. I don't think you understand how critical these resources were.
The entire economy of Germany was built by Western capital. And it continued to grow when the Nazis came to power. Continued when Germany began to attack everyone. They continued to keep it's economy when the war was already in full swing. Banks of Germany - Rockefeller's, oil - Standard Oil, aviation industry - built by Americans, General Motors, ITT. With all these facts, one can not blame the USSR for trading in resources. Germany built superheavy tanks without these resources, so there is no reason to say that without them there would be no military production. The West provided the economy of Hitler, fuu what a shame.
Not necessarily. A part of Germany was rebuild with Western capital but a lot of those efforts were also lost during the Great Depression. What individual businesses did was not really under the control of the Allied governments however, and it was very much frowned upon. Meanwhile German industrialists were the key to German war production, not foreign business. Plus most of the German preparation for war was build up by massive German borrowing abroad, not foreign help.
German industrialists that never could have functioned without all the Western aid they received prior to 1939. And it wasn't just German industrialists either. Opel for example is a company that was absolutely critical to the German war effort (it produced trucks, aircraft parts, torpedoes and land mines), but who was the owner of Opel? General Motors. Senior executives of General Motors even received awards from the Nazi government for their contributions. Fact is that the Nazis would never have been able to invade Poland, France or the USSR without General Motors. And Opel is just a single example. The Nazis would never have been able to build their war machine without aid from the West. And letting someone borrow money is also a form of aid. Also, what businesses do and which countries and individuals they trade with was and is very much under the control of governments. Ever heard of the word 'sanctions'? No one cared to put sanctions on the Nazis until Nazis attacked them. Dealing with the Nazis was way too profitable, and no one, either in the West or in the USSR, wanted to upset them.
Well international trade was the norm, even the Soviets participated in trade and with Germany as well. If you are aware that General Motors owned Opel, you must also be aware that there it is debate to what extent General Motors had active control over Opel once WW2 started. The awards they got were pre-39 for their service. So yes, Western economic cooperation helped once the Nazis decided to switch those factories towards war production.
Don't pretend those factories weren't making military equipment before. The German army did not just jump out of a hole in the ground in 1939. It was built up over the preceding years, which would not have been possible without the aid of Western companies and governments.
Disciple of Fate wrote: But international economic sanctions weren't nearly as common back in the first half of the 20th century and countries were often afraid to use them so as not to provoke war. Not even the Soviets sanctioned Germany.
And that is exactly the point I want to make. No one sanctioned Germany. You are really singling out the Soviet Union for cooperating with the Nazis here, but the truth is that all countries happily cooperated with the Nazis. They all are guilty of allowing Hitler to build up his massive war machine and allowing him to invade countries at will. As a Dutchman (or an Englishman, American, Swede or pretty much everyone from the developed world) saying 'but the Soviets cooperated with and helped the Nazis' is hypocritical. It is a pot calling a kettle black. We all cooperated with and helped the Nazis.
Disciple of Fate wrote: It was by far not just a non-aggression pact. Most non-aggression pacts don't have secret clauses about a military campaign by both parties to divide up a third country. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact divided up Europe and allied Hitler and Stalin in the destruction of Poland. The Munich Agreement never went that far, its disingenuous to say they were equal treaties. An alliance at its most basic is the act of allying, Hitler and Stalin did exactly that against Poland. It was a temporary military alliance with a specific goal, not just a non-aggression pact.
Of course the Netherlands did, but the Netherlands had declared itself neutral in any event. Stalin with the provision of critical war supplies and the invasion of Poland actively sided with Hitler. The position of neutral countries is important to consider. Sweden for example would have certainly been invaded to gain acces to their critical war resources. Yet Hitler was in no position to invade the Soviet Union in 1939. Stalin made the deal to supply Hitler, knowing that Hitler while not strong enough would eventually turn on him. It was just stupid to include a trade deal by Stalin.
Again, its disingenuous to state that the Munich Agreement and the invasion of Poland are equal.
Indeed, they are not equal. Allied contribution to the invasion of Czechoslovakia was much greater than Soviet contribution to the invasion of Poland. In the invasion of Poland, the Red Army only gave the final blow to the heavily damaged Polish army that had already fought tooth and nail against the German invaders. In the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the Allies eliminated the entire Czechoslovak military, allowing the Germans to march in unopposed and without spilling a single drop of blood. If I were to invade a country, I sure know which kind of aid I would rather want to have.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Czechoslovakia grudgingly accepted the Munich Agreement because the alternative was to face war and the destruction of the entire country,
Which in the end, was exactly what they got even though they accepted the treaty, is it not? The Czechoslovak government did not want to accept the treaty at all, they wanted to fight. But the British and French threatened them into accepting the treaty (violating their previously made treaties with Czechoslovakia). Czechoslovakia had a powerful military and strong fortifications backed by a very capable military industry. The Soviets had already promised to send troops if Czechoslovakia was attacked and if they had also gotten Allied help the Nazis might very well have been stopped there and the Second World War would have been done with a good deal less misery, genocide and bloodshed. But that is of course in hindsight.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Meanwhile Poland was an actual invasion during a war. Nothing was requested, because what was required was not handing over some territory, it was the destruction of the entire state and the elimination of its people by the Germans and the national identity by the Soviets through actions such as at Katyn. So yes, in that sense the Soviets were very different from the West.
Are you implying that the invasion of Czechoslovakia wasn't an actual invasion? I have a Slovak housemate, shall I ask him what he thinks of that? Czechoslovakia was as much as an invasion as Poland, the only difference is that in the first invasion, the Allies had forced the Czechoslovaks to not fight back. The Munich Agreement (or Munich Betrayal, as they called it in Czechoslovakia) wasn't just about handing over a bit of territory either. It was about the destruction of Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia ceased to exist after the invasion as much as Poland did after it was invaded. And it is not like the Allies could not have known that would happen. The Czechs already told them that would happen. Sure, you could argue the Allies never actually sent soldiers to occupy parts of Czechoslovakia (although Poland, who would join the Allies less than a year later, did send soldiers to annex part of Czechoslovakia and prevented the Soviets from coming to the aid of the Czechoslovaks), but they worked together with Germany and sent diplomats that were far more effective in fighting Czechoslovakia than the entire combined military might of Germany, France and Britain ever could have been. If, by your loose definition of alliance, that is not an alliance between the Allies and Germany, then you need to redefine your definition.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I'm not saying this makes the Soviets any worse than the others for trading with Hitler, but the fact of the matter is that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact secret clause did make the Soviets a lot worse than the other countries. Trading was in the end just stupid for countries such as the Netherlands and the Soviet Union, but the Soviets suffered a lot more because of it. I'm also not blaming the Soviets directly for the non-aggression part of the Pact, Stalin imagined France and Germany would murder each other. Yet what I can blame the Soviets for is engaging in the exact same type of activities Hitler engaged in by forcefully annexing countries, then going on the systematically eliminate what Stalin saw as the enemy in those populations. That part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is frequently forgotten because Hitler went on to do far worse things.
Aye, you can blame the Soviets for those things. But you can not blame them for cooperating with the Germans. At least, not more than you can blame the other countries of Europe.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So no, I don't blame the Soviets for trading and neither for not wanting to go to war at the time. Of course in hindsight but even at the time in 39 Stalin knew those resources would help his future enemy grow stronger.
Actually, there is a lot of evidence that Stalin misjudged Hitler. Stalin was much more afraid of Britain and other capitalist powers than he was of Hitler (somewhat understandable if you look at the recent history at the time of Britain and the USSR and compare that to the recent history at the time of Germany and the USSR. Germany had aided the USSR, while Britain was one of its most fervent opponents and even tried to invade what would become the USSR in 1918). He also knew that Hitler, while he was strongly anticommunist, was also very much anti-British. Stalin actually entertained the thought of joining the Axis and teaming up with Germany to fight Britain. Only after that did he plan to attack Hitler.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think I'm done replying after being accused of falling to Goebbels' propaganda and now this. I was enjoying the historical debate even though it was obvious we were never going to agree. But it has crossed the line of what is acceptable to me.[/b]
It was not necessary to use manipulations such as Katyn and "Poland Invaded by USSR". You first started moving topic on this subject and spawned a dispute.
The reality is that the Soviet Union invaded Poland and perpetrated the Katyn Massacre. Denying these two basic facts calling them "manipulation", "Goebbels' propaganda" and "fake" is crossing the line to me, because its engaging in serious unhistorical revisionism. The great irony is that the Katyn Massacre wasn't made up by Goebbels for once, the Soviets actually comitted it, it wasn't even Nazi propaganda, just reality. These two events were clear consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which we were already discussing.
A dispute was spawned because you accused me of being "another victim of Goebbels propaganda" and called Katyn "fake" and orchastrated by the Germans. There just isn't much to debate on after that. Because it moves the debate away from the historical into unhistorical revisionism not even the Soviet state and Russia kept engaging in.
There is a great deal of propaganda about the Katyn massacres, Freakazoitt is right in that. It is kind of logical considering that the entire story originates as Nazi propaganda. But it is true that the Soviets executed Polish officers at Katyn and other places. There is no denying that crime. The Soviet government itself has admitted that and apologised for it, and the Russian government has made public most of the surviving files that relate to the massacres. People who still deny the Katyn massacres are eithr fooling themselves or are hardline communists who idolise Stalin. Which kinda is the same thing I guess.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/12 19:21:44
Britain and the US? No Britain blockaded Germany like they did in WW1 and the US obliged, providing war material to France and Britain. Meanwhile between 1939 and 1941 the Soviet Union supplied anywhere from half or two thirds of all the resources Germany received in 39-41. It was the Soviets who kept trading with the Nazis after 39, not stopping their trade untill the moment Germany invaded. In fact the last resource train famously crossed into Germany mere hours before the invasion.
What involvement was so great? The Soviet resources literally kept the Nazi war machine going for two years while they overran Western Europe and prepared for Barbarossa. Neither the US or the UK played such a vital role. I don't think you understand how critical these resources were.
The entire economy of Germany was built by Western capital. And it continued to grow when the Nazis came to power. Continued when Germany began to attack everyone. They continued to keep it's economy when the war was already in full swing. Banks of Germany - Rockefeller's, oil - Standard Oil, aviation industry - built by Americans, General Motors, ITT. With all these facts, one can not blame the USSR for trading in resources. Germany built superheavy tanks without these resources, so there is no reason to say that without them there would be no military production.
The West provided the economy of Hitler, fuu what a shame.
Not necessarily. A part of Germany was rebuild with Western capital but a lot of those efforts were also lost during the Great Depression. What individual businesses did was not really under the control of the Allied governments however, and it was very much frowned upon. Meanwhile German industrialists were the key to German war production, not foreign business. Plus most of the German preparation for war was build up by massive German borrowing abroad, not foreign help.
German industrialists that never could have functioned without all the Western aid they received prior to 1939. And it wasn't just German industrialists either. Opel for example is a company that was absolutely critical to the German war effort (it produced trucks, aircraft parts, torpedoes and land mines), but who was the owner of Opel? General Motors. Senior executives of General Motors even received awards from the Nazi government for their contributions. Fact is that the Nazis would never have been able to invade Poland, France or the USSR without General Motors. And Opel is just a single example. The Nazis would never have been able to build their war machine without aid from the West. And letting someone borrow money is also a form of aid. Also, what businesses do and which countries and individuals they trade with was and is very much under the control of governments. Ever heard of the word 'sanctions'? No one cared to put sanctions on the Nazis until Nazis attacked them. Dealing with the Nazis was way too profitable, and no one, either in the West or in the USSR, wanted to upset them.
Well international trade was the norm, even the Soviets participated in trade and with Germany as well. If you are aware that General Motors owned Opel, you must also be aware that there it is debate to what extent General Motors had active control over Opel once WW2 started. The awards they got were pre-39 for their service. So yes, Western economic cooperation helped once the Nazis decided to switch those factories towards war production.
Don't pretend those factories weren't making military equipment before. The German army did not just jump out of a hole in the ground in 1939. It was built up over the preceding years, which would not have been possible without the aid of Western companies and governments.
Actually they weren't. The GM-Opel factories weren't used for war production until the actual outbreak of war, you could argue though that after all those trucks were seized by the army the pre 39 production became war equipment. But Opel didn't start of producing tanks or aircraft until later. The German Army did build itself up rapidly, but if for example you look at the total amount of tanks build before 1939 (just small ones even) they only build around 600 a year. A vast difference from the thousands to tens of thousands a year during the war. The Germans really didn't have that much material in 1939, they just used it better.
What was and wasn't possible due to the economic aid of Western companies and governments and what was possible due to military and economic help from the Soviets is a hard question. Most economic help wasn't meant to or immediately redirected into the war effort until 1939.
Disciple of Fate wrote: But international economic sanctions weren't nearly as common back in the first half of the 20th century and countries were often afraid to use them so as not to provoke war. Not even the Soviets sanctioned Germany.
And that is exactly the point I want to make. No one sanctioned Germany. You are really singling out the Soviet Union for cooperating with the Nazis here, but the truth is that all countries happily cooperated with the Nazis. They all are guilty of allowing Hitler to build up his massive war machine and allowing him to invade countries at will. As a Dutchman (or an Englishman, American, Swede or pretty much everyone from the developed world) saying 'but the Soviets cooperated with and helped the Nazis' is hypocritical. It is a pot calling a kettle black. We all cooperated with and helped the Nazis.
I'm singling out the Soviets because of their critical cooperation with the Nazis in the years between 39 and 41. I'm not passing judgement on it, I'm just making a point that the Soviets did this knowing they would be the next target. They did more to help Hitler prepare for the invasion of the Soviet Union than anyone else in that sense. Of course France losing didn't help, but they couldn't even help themselves
Romania and Sweden remained important resource countries for Germany even after 41, but the equation the found themselves in versus the one the Soviets found themselves in in 39 was slightly different. They were different degrees of lets say 'willing' cooperation. Everyone chipped in doing it, but only the Soviet Union had it backfire that spectacularly.
Disciple of Fate wrote: It was by far not just a non-aggression pact. Most non-aggression pacts don't have secret clauses about a military campaign by both parties to divide up a third country. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact divided up Europe and allied Hitler and Stalin in the destruction of Poland. The Munich Agreement never went that far, its disingenuous to say they were equal treaties. An alliance at its most basic is the act of allying, Hitler and Stalin did exactly that against Poland. It was a temporary military alliance with a specific goal, not just a non-aggression pact.
Of course the Netherlands did, but the Netherlands had declared itself neutral in any event. Stalin with the provision of critical war supplies and the invasion of Poland actively sided with Hitler. The position of neutral countries is important to consider. Sweden for example would have certainly been invaded to gain acces to their critical war resources. Yet Hitler was in no position to invade the Soviet Union in 1939. Stalin made the deal to supply Hitler, knowing that Hitler while not strong enough would eventually turn on him. It was just stupid to include a trade deal by Stalin.
Again, its disingenuous to state that the Munich Agreement and the invasion of Poland are equal.
Indeed, they are not equal. Allied contribution to the invasion of Czechoslovakia was much greater than Soviet contribution to the invasion of Poland. In the invasion of Poland, the Red Army only gave the final blow to the heavily damaged Polish army that had already fought tooth and nail against the German invaders. In the invasion of Czechoslovakia, the Allies eliminated the entire Czechoslovak military, allowing the Germans to march in unopposed and without spilling a single drop of blood. If I were to invade a country, I sure know which kind of aid I would rather want to have.
Invasion of Czechoslovakia? Are you referring to the First Vienna Award? The Allies had nothing to do with the actual disappearance of Czechoslovakia as happened after the Munich Agreement. The Allies didn't eliminate the Czechoslovakian army, they just gave away the Sudetenland, the fortified border. The Czechoslovakian chose not to resist the German invasion because they knew it would be futile.
So your statement is more along the lines of, if I had to chose between giving up an important slice of territory and being bloodily crushed between two armies you would choose the latter? The Allies didn't know Hitler would take all of the Sudetenland, that as you said is hindsight. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was quite clear on the fate of Poland however.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Czechoslovakia grudgingly accepted the Munich Agreement because the alternative was to face war and the destruction of the entire country,
Which in the end, was exactly what they got even though they accepted the treaty, is it not? The Czechoslovak government did not want to accept the treaty at all, they wanted to fight. But the British and French threatened them into accepting the treaty (violating their previously made treaties with Czechoslovakia). Czechoslovakia had a powerful military and strong fortifications backed by a very capable military industry. The Soviets had already promised to send troops if Czechoslovakia was attacked and if they had also gotten Allied help the Nazis might very well have been stopped there and the Second World War would have been done with a good deal less misery, genocide and bloodshed. But that is of course in hindsight.
Yes the Munich Agreement was one of the weirdest displays of diplomacy I have seen. Two much stronger nations dealing with a weaker aggressive Germany, threatening with, but absent from the conference, Soviet military intervention to make Hitler accept less.
Realistically the Soviets were in no position to intervene due to the weakened army and Poland refusing entry. If France however would have put their foot down (and removed that foot up the French army's ass) they might have actually stopped Hitler. Its the tragedy of thinking at the time Hitler would settle for something instead of everything.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Meanwhile Poland was an actual invasion during a war. Nothing was requested, because what was required was not handing over some territory, it was the destruction of the entire state and the elimination of its people by the Germans and the national identity by the Soviets through actions such as at Katyn. So yes, in that sense the Soviets were very different from the West.
Are you implying that the invasion of Czechoslovakia wasn't an actual invasion? I have a Slovak housemate, shall I ask him what he thinks of that? Czechoslovakia was as much as an invasion as Poland, the only difference is that in the first invasion, the Allies had forced the Czechoslovaks to not fight back. The Munich Agreement (or Munich Betrayal, as they called it in Czechoslovakia) wasn't just about handing over a bit of territory either. It was about the destruction of Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia ceased to exist after the invasion as much as Poland did after it was invaded. And it is not like the Allies could not have known that would happen. The Czechs already told them that would happen.
Sure, you could argue the Allies never actually sent soldiers to occupy parts of Czechoslovakia (although Poland, who would join the Allies less than a year later, did send soldiers to annex part of Czechoslovakia and prevented the Soviets from coming to the aid of the Czechoslovaks), but they worked together with Germany and sent diplomats that were far more effective in fighting Czechoslovakia than the entire combined military might of Germany, France and Britain ever could have been. If, by your loose definition of alliance, that is not an alliance between the Allies and Germany, then you need to redefine your definition.
It was an actual invasion. But the invasion and the Munich Agreement are two separate events in which the Allies were only involved in the second. Also Slovak housemate? Wouldn't he view it slightly different as for Slovakia it was the chance to become independent? I guess it depends on his views on Czechoslovakia, but not all Slovaks were that happy to die for the Czechs at the time. The Munich Agreement did lead to the later invasion, but that was never the intend. Again, the key difference between the Munich Agreement and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
Well they didn't ally to destroy Czechoslovakia like Germany and the SU did for Poland. Its different enough to not consider it allying in that sense. But I agree that Allied cooperation left Czechoslovakia very vulnerable for the separate blow afterwards.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I'm not saying this makes the Soviets any worse than the others for trading with Hitler, but the fact of the matter is that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact secret clause did make the Soviets a lot worse than the other countries. Trading was in the end just stupid for countries such as the Netherlands and the Soviet Union, but the Soviets suffered a lot more because of it. I'm also not blaming the Soviets directly for the non-aggression part of the Pact, Stalin imagined France and Germany would murder each other. Yet what I can blame the Soviets for is engaging in the exact same type of activities Hitler engaged in by forcefully annexing countries, then going on the systematically eliminate what Stalin saw as the enemy in those populations. That part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is frequently forgotten because Hitler went on to do far worse things.
Aye, you can blame the Soviets for those things. But you can not blame them for cooperating with the Germans. At least, not more than you can blame the other countries of Europe.
Well I can blame them for killing Poland in cooperation with Germany, but beyond that no it wasn't that different.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So no, I don't blame the Soviets for trading and neither for not wanting to go to war at the time. Of course in hindsight but even at the time in 39 Stalin knew those resources would help his future enemy grow stronger.
Actually, there is a lot of evidence that Stalin misjudged Hitler. Stalin was much more afraid of Britain and other capitalist powers than he was of Hitler (somewhat understandable if you look at the recent history at the time of Britain and the USSR and compare that to the recent history at the time of Germany and the USSR. Germany had aided the USSR, while Britain was one of its most fervent opponents and even tried to invade what would become the USSR in 1918). He also knew that Hitler, while he was strongly anticommunist, was also very much anti-British. Stalin actually entertained the thought of joining the Axis and teaming up with Germany to fight Britain. Only after that did he plan to attack Hitler.
Yes, Stalin was paranoid of Britain and thought even in June 41 felt that they were setting him up for a war with Hitler. But Stalin himself was aware that he would have to fight Hitler eventually, but the Soviets wouldn't be ready until at least 42-43 with rebuilding their army.
I get were it comes from and to an extent it wasn't unreasonable of course. But it ended up clouding his view to a dangerous extent. Hitler himself however didn't hate the British much, he loathed the French. But Hitler for his part thought that Britain might be neutral or perhaps side with him in the war against the Soviets. Once France was beaten Hitler didn't need to keep fighting Britain, its what Britain wanted.
Disciple of Fate wrote: I think I'm done replying after being accused of falling to Goebbels' propaganda and now this. I was enjoying the historical debate even though it was obvious we were never going to agree. But it has crossed the line of what is acceptable to me.[/b]
It was not necessary to use manipulations such as Katyn and "Poland Invaded by USSR". You first started moving topic on this subject and spawned a dispute.
The reality is that the Soviet Union invaded Poland and perpetrated the Katyn Massacre. Denying these two basic facts calling them "manipulation", "Goebbels' propaganda" and "fake" is crossing the line to me, because its engaging in serious unhistorical revisionism. The great irony is that the Katyn Massacre wasn't made up by Goebbels for once, the Soviets actually comitted it, it wasn't even Nazi propaganda, just reality. These two events were clear consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which we were already discussing.
A dispute was spawned because you accused me of being "another victim of Goebbels propaganda" and called Katyn "fake" and orchastrated by the Germans. There just isn't much to debate on after that. Because it moves the debate away from the historical into unhistorical revisionism not even the Soviet state and Russia kept engaging in.
There is a great deal of propaganda about the Katyn massacres, Freakazoitt is right in that. It is kind of logical considering that the entire story originates as Nazi propaganda. But it is true that the Soviets executed Polish officers at Katyn and other places. There is no denying that crime. The Soviet government itself has admitted that and apologised for it, and the Russian government has made public most of the surviving files that relate to the massacres. People who still deny the Katyn massacres are eithr fooling themselves or are hardline communists who idolise Stalin. Which kinda is the same thing I guess.
Yes, but saying it is manufactured Nazi propaganda is wrong, although they did happily use it.
I guess some people still want to deny it because it reflects badly upon 'Russian' history. I don't think it does, as they were entirely different circumstances and a single chapter doesn't ruin the entire book so to speak.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
The reality is that the Soviet Union invaded Poland and perpetrated the Katyn Massacre. Denying these two basic facts calling them "manipulation", "Goebbels' propaganda" and "fake" is crossing the line to me, because its engaging in serious unhistorical revisionism. The great irony is that the Katyn Massacre wasn't made up by Goebbels for once, the Soviets actually comitted it, it wasn't even Nazi propaganda, just reality. These two events were clear consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which we were already discussing.
That's what it is.
Who is to blame for the fate of Poland:
Hitler's Germany
Entente
You can also add the government of Poland
But instead of all this, a screaming slogan comes to the fore "Soviet invasion in Poland"and is reinforced by a photograph of what you call a" joint parade in Warsaw ". And it is repeated many times in a suitable time for political reasons. This is the technology of Goebbels. moreover - it is his own work.
A dispute was spawned because you accused me of being "another victim of Goebbels propaganda" and called Katyn "fake" and orchastrated by the Germans. There just isn't much to debate on after that. Because it moves the debate away from the historical into unhistorical revisionism not even the Soviet state and Russia kept engaging in.
First, there are no obvious facts pointing to the NKVD. But there are those that point to the Nazis. At least it is necessary to finish the investigation of this case, and not to inflate the campaign with the next slogan "Katyn!".
Secondly, this is not so important an event to turn it into the title illustration of the Second World War.
I guess some people still want to deny it because it reflects badly upon 'Russian' history. I don't think it does, as they were entirely different circumstances and a single chapter doesn't ruin the entire book so to speak.
I do not care who is to blame for their execution. But I see obvious violations of the principles of history as a science, and not a means of propaganda.
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
Trying to paint the Entente as more to blame for the dividing up of Poland than the USSR is disengenious, especially when you ignore that the politics of Britain (maybe France as well) was avoiding another large scale war in Europe.
But then the Entente didn't agree to carve up Poland once Germany called the Ententes bluff of not wanting to actually go to war for any of it's treaties.
Not that it's an excuse, but there's a reason "perifidious Albion" is a moniker about the British.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/13 11:46:50
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Trying to paint the Entente as more to blame for the dividing up of Poland than the USSR is disengenious, especially when you ignore that the politics of Britain (maybe France as well) was avoiding another large scale war in Europe.
How can we avoid war by giving Hitler one country after another? Why then did not Britain itself surrender in order to "avoid war"? It is quite obvious that in order to avoid war it was necessary to enter troops and overthrow Hitler, instead of feeding him.
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Trying to paint the Entente as more to blame for the dividing up of Poland than the USSR is disengenious, especially when you ignore that the politics of Britain (maybe France as well) was avoiding another large scale war in Europe.
How can we avoid war by giving Hitler one country after another? Why then did not Britain itself surrender in order to "avoid war"? It is qunite obvious that in order to avoid war it was necessary to enter troops and overthrow Hitler, instead of feeding him.
Hindsight is 20/20,
Appeasement was the name of the game, people thought they'd be doing trench warfare all over again, surprisngly Britain didn't want to do WW1 again.
So yes we let them hang out to dry because people still believed Hitler wouldn't and that by giving an inch they wouldn't have to fight over miles.
But again, inaction/ giving up a little in the hope that would be enough, is different to actively agreeing to carve up a nation.
Besides, if boots on the ground were needed to overthrow Hitler, why'd the USSR agree to the MR pact and then abide by it?
Strangely enough, because they also weren't in a position to do anything about it and also needed time, so the small players were used as bargaining chips.
Although the idea of the Entente stepping in to defend Poland from bothe the Nazi's and the USSR is an interesting one. That could only have gone well for everyone who wasn't Germany
There's a reason why everyone was trying to slow Hitler down without declaring war, nobody other than Germany and the French (around the Maginot line) were ready, and look how well the preparedness of the Entente went for them in Belgium and how much use the ML was.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/12/13 12:43:11
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Trying to paint the Entente as more to blame for the dividing up of Poland than the USSR is disengenious, especially when you ignore that the politics of Britain (maybe France as well) was avoiding another large scale war in Europe.
How can we avoid war by giving Hitler one country after another? Why then did not Britain itself surrender in order to "avoid war"? It is qunite obvious that in order to avoid war it was necessary to enter troops and overthrow Hitler, instead of feeding him.
Hindsight is 20/20,
Appeasement was the name of the game, people thought they'd be doing trench warfare all over again, surprisngly Britain didn't want to do WW1 again.
So yes we let them hang out to dry because people still believed Hitler wouldn't and that by giving an inch they wouldn't have to fight over miles.
But again, inaction/ giving up a little in the hope that would be enough, is different to actively agreeing to carve up a nation.
Besides, if boots on the ground were needed to overthrow Hitler, why'd the USSR agree to the MR pact and then abide by it?
Strangely enough, because they also weren't in a position to do anything about it and also needed time, so the small players were used as bargaining chips.
Although the idea of the Entente stepping in to defend Poland from bothe the Nazi's and the USSR is an interesting one. That could only have gone well for everyone who wasn't Germany
There's a reason why everyone was trying to slow Hitler down without declaring war, nobody other than Germany and the French (around the Maginot line) were ready, and look how well the preparedness of the Entente went for them in Belgium and how much use the ML was.
Actually the USSR wanted to send troops to aid Czechoslovakia, but Poland would not let them pass. And the Western Allies (despite France being bound by treaty to defend Czechoslovakia) refused to aid Czechoslovakia as well and even forced them to surrender a significant part of their territory, leaving Czechoslovakia weak and easily destroyed by Hitler a few months later. Saying appeasement was a strategy to buy more time for war preparations is revisionist nonsense. They wanted to avoid war altogether. "Peace for our time" remember? There were lots of people prepared to fight. In hindsight, Hitler could have been easily stopped in Czechoslovakia. But Hitler saw that the governments of France and England were unwilling to fight, and he exploited that.
The reality is that the Soviet Union invaded Poland and perpetrated the Katyn Massacre. Denying these two basic facts calling them "manipulation", "Goebbels' propaganda" and "fake" is crossing the line to me, because its engaging in serious unhistorical revisionism. The great irony is that the Katyn Massacre wasn't made up by Goebbels for once, the Soviets actually comitted it, it wasn't even Nazi propaganda, just reality. These two events were clear consequences of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which we were already discussing.
That's what it is.
Who is to blame for the fate of Poland:
Hitler's Germany
Entente
You can also add the government of Poland
But instead of all this, a screaming slogan comes to the fore "Soviet invasion in Poland"and is reinforced by a photograph of what you call a" joint parade in Warsaw ". And it is repeated many times in a suitable time for political reasons. This is the technology of Goebbels. moreover - it is his own work.
I admitted that Warsaw was a mistake in remembering. But that victory parade did happen. And so did the Soviet invasion of Poland. At the end of the day Germany and the Soviet Union hold final responsibility for the destruction of Poland as they physically marched in troops to end it.
Quit it with the Goebbels crap. Its ridiculous deflection.
A dispute was spawned because you accused me of being "another victim of Goebbels propaganda" and called Katyn "fake" and orchastrated by the Germans. There just isn't much to debate on after that. Because it moves the debate away from the historical into unhistorical revisionism not even the Soviet state and Russia kept engaging in.
First, there are no obvious facts pointing to the NKVD. But there are those that point to the Nazis. At least it is necessary to finish the investigation of this case, and not to inflate the campaign with the next slogan "Katyn!".
Secondly, this is not so important an event to turn it into the title illustration of the Second World War.
No, everything points towards the NKVD. We know those who got killed were captured by the Soviet army, not the Germans. In 1940 the head of the NKVD Beria made the decision with the approval of Stalin. Plus the Soviets themselves documented the Katyn Massacre. The fact that German pistols were used is the weakest counter argument, as the Soviets had access to German pistols and it was even said they were preferred over Soviet ones by the NKVD.
The investigations are finished, its clear, it was the Soviets. Even the Soviet and Russian governments have admitted to it. Denying it is just silly.
I guess some people still want to deny it because it reflects badly upon 'Russian' history. I don't think it does, as they were entirely different circumstances and a single chapter doesn't ruin the entire book so to speak.
I do not care who is to blame for their execution. But I see obvious violations of the principles of history as a science, and not a means of propaganda.
You obviously do care, as you're doing your best to deny the accusations against the country that did it.
There are no violations of the principles of history. Furthermore history is not a science. Take that from someone academically trained as a historian (amongst others), its not science its a humanities subject. You're the one ignoring historical reality and countering with 1940's Soviet propaganda.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Trying to paint the Entente as more to blame for the dividing up of Poland than the USSR is disengenious, especially when you ignore that the politics of Britain (maybe France as well) was avoiding another large scale war in Europe.
How can we avoid war by giving Hitler one country after another? Why then did not Britain itself surrender in order to "avoid war"? It is quite obvious that in order to avoid war it was necessary to enter troops and overthrow Hitler, instead of feeding him.
You're literally arguing that they should have avoided war by going to war against Hitler?
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Trying to paint the Entente as more to blame for the dividing up of Poland than the USSR is disengenious, especially when you ignore that the politics of Britain (maybe France as well) was avoiding another large scale war in Europe.
How can we avoid war by giving Hitler one country after another? Why then did not Britain itself surrender in order to "avoid war"? It is qunite obvious that in order to avoid war it was necessary to enter troops and overthrow Hitler, instead of feeding him.
Hindsight is 20/20,
Appeasement was the name of the game, people thought they'd be doing trench warfare all over again, surprisngly Britain didn't want to do WW1 again.
So yes we let them hang out to dry because people still believed Hitler wouldn't and that by giving an inch they wouldn't have to fight over miles.
But again, inaction/ giving up a little in the hope that would be enough, is different to actively agreeing to carve up a nation.
Besides, if boots on the ground were needed to overthrow Hitler, why'd the USSR agree to the MR pact and then abide by it?
Strangely enough, because they also weren't in a position to do anything about it and also needed time, so the small players were used as bargaining chips.
Although the idea of the Entente stepping in to defend Poland from bothe the Nazi's and the USSR is an interesting one. That could only have gone well for everyone who wasn't Germany
There's a reason why everyone was trying to slow Hitler down without declaring war, nobody other than Germany and the French (around the Maginot line) were ready, and look how well the preparedness of the Entente went for them in Belgium and how much use the ML was.
Actually the USSR wanted to send troops to aid Czechoslovakia, but Poland would not let them pass. And the Western Allies (despite France being bound by treaty to defend Czechoslovakia) refused to aid Czechoslovakia as well and even forced them to surrender a significant part of their territory, leaving Czechoslovakia weak and easily destroyed by Hitler a few months later. Saying appeasement was a strategy to buy more time for war preparations is revisionist nonsense. They wanted to avoid war altogether. "Peace for our time" remember? There were lots of people prepared to fight. In hindsight, Hitler could have been easily stopped in Czechoslovakia. But Hitler saw that the governments of France and England were unwilling to fight, and he exploited that.
Eh, in part the appeasement partly being about delaying for war preparations is true. Of course they tried to guarantee peace, but the British thought themselves nowhere near ready to face another conflict in 1938 (and really, 1940 showed they weren't). They didn't know of course that Hitler himself was very weak in 38.
Hitler would have backed off, but its not an overstatement to say that no party was ready for a war but France, but France had its own military and political mess that would show in 1940.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/12/13 18:42:35
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Trying to paint the Entente as more to blame for the dividing up of Poland than the USSR is disengenious, especially when you ignore that the politics of Britain (maybe France as well) was avoiding another large scale war in Europe.
How can we avoid war by giving Hitler one country after another? Why then did not Britain itself surrender in order to "avoid war"? It is qunite obvious that in order to avoid war it was necessary to enter troops and overthrow Hitler, instead of feeding him.
Hindsight is 20/20,
Appeasement was the name of the game, people thought they'd be doing trench warfare all over again, surprisngly Britain didn't want to do WW1 again.
So yes we let them hang out to dry because people still believed Hitler wouldn't and that by giving an inch they wouldn't have to fight over miles.
But again, inaction/ giving up a little in the hope that would be enough, is different to actively agreeing to carve up a nation.
Besides, if boots on the ground were needed to overthrow Hitler, why'd the USSR agree to the MR pact and then abide by it?
Strangely enough, because they also weren't in a position to do anything about it and also needed time, so the small players were used as bargaining chips.
Although the idea of the Entente stepping in to defend Poland from bothe the Nazi's and the USSR is an interesting one. That could only have gone well for everyone who wasn't Germany
There's a reason why everyone was trying to slow Hitler down without declaring war, nobody other than Germany and the French (around the Maginot line) were ready, and look how well the preparedness of the Entente went for them in Belgium and how much use the ML was.
Actually the USSR wanted to send troops to aid Czechoslovakia, but Poland would not let them pass. And the Western Allies (despite France being bound by treaty to defend Czechoslovakia) refused to aid Czechoslovakia as well and even forced them to surrender a significant part of their territory, leaving Czechoslovakia weak and easily destroyed by Hitler a few months later. Saying appeasement was a strategy to buy more time for war preparations is revisionist nonsense. They wanted to avoid war altogether. "Peace for our time" remember? There were lots of people prepared to fight. In hindsight, Hitler could have been easily stopped in Czechoslovakia. But Hitler saw that the governments of France and England were unwilling to fight, and he exploited that.
I wonder why Poland wouldn't want Russian troops moving through Poland
As I said, the political climate in Britain, before 1939 was one of not wanting to do WW1 all over again, so appeasement was the option they went for.
The time was more in regards to the USSR needing to move stuff over the Urals and get their house in some sort of vague semblance of order, as both Hitler and Stalin knew he would eventually head that way.
Britain and France were hoping he'd have his fill if they handed over the chunk of Czechoslovakia. This turned out to be false, but that's what they went with.
)
Mordant 92nd 'Acid Dogs'
The Lost and Damned
Inquisition
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
yes, he was a good speaker. but hardly the nazism would not be able to exist without him.
