Did Stalin start WWII?

[Orion]

No, Hitler started it, by attacking Poland in 1939.

Stalin also invaded Poland after Germany in the same month under the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which saw them partition Poland.
So why did Britain and France not declare war on the USSR as well as they also violated polish sovereignty?

Yes, but the end result was that Germans were 400 kilometers farther from Moscow. Crucial 400 kilometers that would have fallen in German hands were there not for the R-M pact.

 

[durangotang]

 

[YossariansRight]

National Socialism (Germany) vs. International Socialism USSR): two sides of the same coin.

The world would be a better place if both of them had completely annihilated the other.

 

[RexImperator]

By the time of Stalin it was "socialism in one country" and not so different from fascism. Instead of worshipping a particular race or nationality, they put the collective will on a pedestal. Both systems demeaned the individual.

 

[unbowed]

We helped an evil guy beat an evil guy in WWII.

And along the way we bankrupted our country and let America take over the world.

And what was the end result? A Europe controlled by Germany.

What about the Munich Agreement (Betrayal according to the Czechs) whom the British and French signed giving Germany the Czech Sudetenland?

Or FDR goading the Japanese with an oil embargo, knowing they had plans for attacking Pearl Harbor?

And just how could someone like Stalin come to power? Sure he was a ruthless opportunist, but why were the Communists a seemingly better alternative to the tsars?

And the Finnish and the Baltic partisans? They fought against the USSR and thus the Allies, but they were pawns on chessboards who wanted to jump out and live their lives. Geography told them no.

And then Poland being trapped between a rock and a hard place; while its bravest fought alongside the Allies only to be given back to Stalin.

It's interesting to trace the history farther back and see just how intertwined this game of thrones becomes.

WWII had many players playing for different reasons. What I find interesting these days is the events leading up to WWII; from WWI to the Great Depression to Futurist manifestos and cries of salvation from economic destruction.

Speaking of digging deep; I haven't read these yet but I'm told they are fascinating; maybe you'll beat me to them cardguy:

http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Bolshevik-Revolution-Capitalists/dp/190557035X
http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Street-Hitler-Antony-Sutton/dp/0945001533

It seems the financiers are playing everyone for fools.

America emerged from the ashes richer and more influential than ever thanks to the bomb and having minimal home turf damage but as Lenin so eloquently said:

"Germany will militarize herself out of existence, England will expand herself out of existence, and America will spend herself out of existence."

We had a nice run of prosperity until the ending stages of the Vietnam War where America since then, is slowly being letted of its vitality.

And Germany may "control" Europe as you say ... but who controls Germany?

 

[Katatonic]

France is probably the most responsible for WWII. The Treaty of Versailles placed an undeserved and unbearable burden upon the German people with France fighting every concession asked for by the other allied powers on Germany's behalf. There's also some interesting evidence that France knowingly undermined the Weimar Republic and secretly funded the rise of Hitler thinking he would be an ineffective leader.

France even kept that shit up 70 years later with threatening to veto the reunification of Germany unless they gave up their monetary sovereignty.

 

[eradicator]

Japan began world war 2 in 1931 by invading Manchuria.

Oh, you don't care about Asia?

 

[unbowed]

Japan began world war 2 in 1931 by invading Manchuria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_invasion_of_Manchuria#External_impact

Very interesting; I didn't know Hitler and Mussolini were inspired by this event.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_War_(1945)#Importance_and_consequences

Also interesting how Tsuyoshi Hasegawa posits it was the Russian invasion of Manchuria that caused Japan to surrender; not the atomic bombs.

So much more to read now...

 

[Jukes]

^ I agree. Never knew Mother Russia fought Japan in WW2

 

[Feisbook Control]

Japan began world war 2 in 1931 by invading Manchuria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_invasion_of_Manchuria#External_impact

Very interesting; I didn't know Hitler and Mussolini were inspired by this event.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_War_(1945)#Importance_and_consequences

Also interesting how Tsuyoshi Hasegawa posits it was the Russian invasion of Manchuria that caused Japan to surrender; not the atomic bombs.

So much more to read now...

Yes, the Western allies and Japanese leadership were concerned not only about the Soviet Union invading the home islands of Japan (I guess Hokkaido and northern Honshu), but about a communist revolution amongst the Japanese population, who were extremely impoverished by the end of the war. Japan would have ended up divided a la Germany or Korea.

As for the Allies and the Holocaust, Western nations didn't really care about the Jews. They knew what was going on and still refused to help, despite being offered the chance before the war at the Evian Conference. Hitler was actually willing to let the Jews leave Germany, but other Western nations refused or took minimal numbers of refugees.

 

[Truth Teller]

Yes, the Western allies and Japanese leadership were concerned not only about the Soviet Union invading the home islands of Japan (I guess Hokkaido and northern Honshu), but about a communist revolution amongst the Japanese population, who were extremely impoverished by the end of the war. Japan would have ended up divided a la Germany or Korea.

As for the Allies and the Holocaust, Western nations didn't really care about the Jews. They knew what was going on and still refused to help, despite being offered the chance before the war at the Evian Conference. Hitler was actually willing to let the Jews leave Germany, but other Western nations refused or took minimal numbers of refugees.

Yeah, the Allies really didn't give a damn about the Jews. Adolf Eichmann was willing to release about a million Jews in return for trucks, but the Allies saw it as an attempt to divide the Western Allies from the Soviets. Also, refer to the S.S. St. Louis incident. Interestingly, there were elements in the US who would've let the Jews settle in Alaska (read the Ickes Plan).

My opinion is that the Japanese were going to be forced to surrender by the end of 1946/beginning of 1947. The submarine blockade completely destroyed their merchant and fishing fleet. Much like the UK, the Japanese depended on the seas, and the blockade was literally starving them out.

 

[Chaos]

One thing that interest me is that if there is any group of Germans who are angry today of the post WW2 borders? I mean Germany lost a lot of territory to Poland which never been
Polish. Like Breslau (Wroclaw) for example. I have a hard time to believe all Germans accepts this.

I like Germans, Germany and their history and I have met a lot of Germans but I very very rarely meet any Germans who are interested of discussing these things. They step out of the discussion as fast as they can. I'm curious to know how history is teached in German schools.
Sometimes it's forgotten that Germany and a lot of Germans were victims of the war also.

It reminds me of trying to discuss Chinese politics with a Chinese person. Impossible.

 

[Virtus]

Germans are conditioned to avoid that topic. everyone there has a grandpa who's killed people. they are ashamed.

 

[Chaos]

^ And? That goes for most European countries during WW2.
Germany is not unique in this matter.

 

[Que enspastic]

Hitler was in an unenviable position with Soviet Union in East. Germany didn't have oil. A Soviet takeover of Romanian oil fields would starve Wehrmarcht and Luftwaffe ability to fuel tanks and bombers. I think the only real option open to Germany post-Battle of Britain was to seize Suez Canal and close the Mediterranean (how without Spanish support?) and thereby secure resources needed to safeguard against possible loss of Romania.

I don't think Germany could have ever defeated the Soviets, they had to guard against them instead

 

[Mage]

^ And? That goes for most European countries during WW2.
Germany is not unique in this matter.

Germany is unique because they lost.

Therefore they take shame from the fact that their grandfathers killed people.

Russians on the other hand won.

Therefore they brag about it.

The loser always pays - Germany pays by being ashamed of it's national pride and by generally being emasculated and forced to open to all liberalisms and immigration.

Russians and Americans won and therefore can be unashamedly nationalistic and chauvinistic.

 

[Que enspastic]

Delete

 

[N°6]

France is probably the most responsible for WWII. The Treaty of Versailles placed an undeserved and unbearable burden upon the German people with France fighting every concession asked for by the other allied powers on Germany's behalf. There's also some interesting evidence that France knowingly undermined the Weimar Republic and secretly funded the rise of Hitler thinking he would be an ineffective leader.

France even kept that shit up 70 years later with threatening to veto the reunification of Germany unless they gave up their monetary sovereignty.

In defence of France...

Since the Franco-Prussian war and the subsequent unification of the German states, continental European power has been based in Berlin. Since the French Revolution, French power had been in decline with the exception of the Napoléonic era after which, the defeated France came under British influence.

Therefore after WW1, the French knew perfectly well that the only reason why Germany did not win was because of an alliance with its traditional foe and with the USA which has a constitution which forbids it from getting embroiled into European affairs.

France knew that the German and Austrian-Hungarian armies were not defeated and after the fall of Imperial Russia had caused British and French lines to collapse and that the Germans, Austrians and Hungarians would be capable to do so again without the US Army.

This and because around 11 French departments had been completely destroyed during the war, meant that the French needed to turn an armistice with the Central Powers into a political victory.

 

[N°6]

One thing that interest me is that if there is any group of Germans who are angry today of the post WW2 borders? I mean Germany lost a lot of territory to Poland which never been
Polish. Like Breslau (Wroclaw) for example. I have a hard time to believe all Germans accepts this.

I like Germans, Germany and their history and I have met a lot of Germans but I very very rarely meet any Germans who are interested of discussing these things. They step out of the discussion as fast as they can. I'm curious to know how history is teached in German schools.
Sometimes it's forgotten that Germany and a lot of Germans were victims of the war also.

It reminds me of trying to discuss Chinese politics with a Chinese person. Impossible.

I know one German who was brought up in the DDR and therefore under Communist conditions who argues that legally, the German Reich is 1939 borders. He also argues that there hasn't been a peace treaty between the Allies and Germany.

What we in the UK and US fail to grasp however is that German TV programming and the German education syllabus need to be cleared by Washington DC - so it is little wonder that Germans are some of the most socially liberal, self-hating and guilt-ridden people in earth.

He mentioned that Germany and Japan are still classified as enemies of the United Nations. This makes me wonder if there was something greater behind WW2 than simply the desire 'to stop a madman taking over the world'.

Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter

Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter deals with regional arrangements. It authorizes regional organizations (such as NATO) and even requires attempts to resolve disputes through such agencies (if available) prior to intervention by the UN Security Council. However, Article 53 provides that "no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council."

Chapter VIII makes reference to enemy states, which were powers such as Japan and Germany that remained enemies of the UN signatories at the time of the promulgation of the UN Charter (in the closing months of World War II in mid-1945). There have been proposals to remove these references, but none have come to fruition. Chapter VIII is analogous to Article 21 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, which provides, "Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to affect the validity of international engagements, such as treaties of arbitration or regional understandings like the Monroe doctrine, for securing the maintenance of peace."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VIII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter

 

[Que enspastic]

Delete