The Great Patriotic War: 1939-1943

After reading most of this thread I lost the purpose and meaning of this discussion. But it seems that some people have a political axe to grind here. I'm totally for freedom of opinion and in any case I'm no mod. But I think that a discussion that degenerates into attacks ad personam and casting blame is not very constructive.
Personally I believe that few if any of the countries involved in WW2 were entirely "innocent" (if we want to use this category, and I don't know how much sense it makes in the context of an objective historical analysis). This is nothing new, almost all history is made by different shades of gray, and very rarely black and white. But it seems to me also quite evident that some countries were "less innocent" than others (namely Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and the Empire of Japan). This is also a reflection of their capacity to inflict damage: had Hitler been the Fuehrer of Nazi Luxembourg and Stalin the leader of Soviet Georgia we would barely remember their names.

But, if we want to assign moral blame, I think it should be reserved to the country leaders, their ideologies and the people who actively supported them, not to nations or ethnic groups collectively. And I think that's even true for the Germans, even at the risk of being accused of revisionism. In the last free elections in March 1933 (not entirely free and probably partially rigged) 18% of Germans voted Social Democrat, 12% Communist and 11% Centre (basically Christian Democrats). In the previous election of November 1932 those three parties totaled 49% of the votes, 37% among Socialist and Communists. I seriously doubt that most people who were Socialists and Communists in 1932-33 had turned into Nazis by 1940. But what could they have done? Charge the Chancellery with a molotov? Realistically, heroism and ultimate sacrifice aren't things that can be expected from the average human being. Most people have very little power, if any, under a totalitarian, brutal regime. It would probably have been even more difficult for the people of the Soviet Union to rebel. A lot of them were poor uneducated peasants, and the Soviet control system was probably even more effective than the Nazi one. It is easy, sitting comfortably behind a keyboard, imagine that "if I had been there I would have done this and that". But who can be sure what one would really do when facing torture and death, not only for yourself but also for your family?

Btw, I agree that "political scientist" is an oxymoron. But I think one would find most of those so called scientists, and other social sciences academics, among the opponents of Tucker Carlson than among his epigons.

 

The Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was no surprise including the secret protocol. However, it enabled Hitler to attack Poland and avoid two-front war. The secret protocol was also a surprise to Soviet lawyers in the Nuremberg trial after the war.
In 1933 in German voting the nazi party was running out of money. By losing the party could have collapsed. Hindenburg neither was happy about Hitler. Hitler was not his not 1 candidate for chancellor. Other politicians believed they could take care of Hitler and Hindenburg gave in. Was it von Papen who was the first to run Hitler for chancellor. How wrong he was. He himself ended to Turkey later on.

 

I read about this more. Von Papen was not popular, and discussed with Hitler how to take the chancellor position after resigning. Von Papen, due not being popular, could not take it. He told Hindenburg he could control Hitler as chancellor, and Hindenburg gave his blessing practically on his dying bed. Von Papen could not in the end control Hitler. As we know.