USA and Soviet Union - initial defence

It is still not the fault of the Soviet Union but of Stalin himself and Stalin only. I reckon I loathe him as much as you do.

 

I would also Beria responsible as well, Stalin may have made the policy, but Beria and the NKVD (Even if only the threat of them) ensured it was carried out.

 

I consider Stalin’s help to Nazi Germany, including the invasion of Poland and the Molotov treaty assisted Hitler in his boldness. I would lay the French defeat in 1940 at the Soviets feet. I would lay the hard times the British had after that at thier feet.


So, whilst I may appear rude in my earlier comments disputing the Soviet contribution to WWII victory, I believe that France and Britain alone could have whipped Germany if not for the assistance and comfort the Soviets gave Hitler.

IMHO- this totally negates the 'work' (loss after loss/ defeat after worthless defeat) done by the Red Army in the first few years of the war. Frankly, they almost got what they bloody well deserved.

Yea, Russia contributed a lot in the war- mostly aid to Hitler in starting the war.

This all goes back to the Treaty of Rappallo in 1922 and the Berlin treaty of 1926...

The pattern was decades old by 1939.

So, yeah, the Soviets 'contributed' a lot to WWII, aid in the defeat of Poland and France comes to mind.

The dirty bastards would have made a separate peace with Hitler, as I have already posted elsewhere, just like in WWI.


So that is why I minimize their contributions.

They hurt France and England more than they ever 'helped' anybody.

They only 'helped' themselves to rob from and enslave eastern Europe.


I find their May Day anniversary revolting, revisionist and a fraud.

They should celebrate 'backstabbing day' as their holiday. That or Red Army cowardice day.

Yeah, I am using strong language and it is immflamitory, but the longer I think about it the stronger I feel.

Especillay as I re read some of the response here.

Hitler and Stalin were only business partners in a deal to screw Britain, France, the US and Poland in a venture that that went south.

Let me go find the piece about from a Russian paper about the plan.

www.kp.ru

Feb-24-2005

Screw the Russian contribution, they deserved what they got

 

Off topic

I find your language in the preceding post more than rude and think it has no place in any discussion. One of the hallmarks of this forum has been that people are generally polite in their discussions and less vituperative and dismissive than you are in your posts.

I feel there is no need for that in order to pass on your view/opinion and that, IMHO, is the case regardless of nationality.

Rant over!

 

Cholbert wrote:

You take exception to his language, that's fine, what does his nationality have to do with it though I might ask?

 

Grieg wrote

It means I find such language intended to be inflammatory (and even personal) and offensive regardless of who uses it, where they come from, what sex they are, what political persuasion they are etc. etc. when there is no need for it in any articulate discussion or exchange of views.

Do I need your permission to think this or express it sir?

 

how can any one blame the soviets for being hostile to britan and france as well as other countrys? in the civel war the imperilist powers supported the whites. cruchill himself said he wanted to strangle the soviet union.
so yes stalins policys of srewing with the west were decades old but not as old as the history of the west srewing with the soviet union

and anouther thing the soviets did do somethings in 1941 to contibute to victory
1/ they moved all there heavy industry east so they could continue to fight.
2/ the bravry of lenningread pinned down thousands of men what could have been used on other fronts.
3/ they saved there capital and made ready a million men for stejic reaserve.

this had to be done because unlike the united state the soviet union didnt have thousands of miles of ocean to hide behind(as for the us navly while powerfull proved to be vunrebile at pearl harbour) or over 200 years of imperilist expansion like britan to fall back on.
one last thing, stalingrad was no where near minsk, it was on the southern front so wasnt a atemt to retake thouse lands.

 

Well Sniper, what about Germany and Russia fighting in WWI?

Droog?


I zanyu Russkiuyu kartu

 

Do we ever read these days that when the Luftwaffe bombed Britain, Russia was sending the Nazis fuel and iron ore? When Germany invaded Russia, however, Britain sent food and supplies.


a long article, but worth reading


http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/ha ... 130808.asp

 

I disagree strongly, no matter how much ressources bloody Stalin contributed to Germany, if Russia hadnt fought Germany during World War 2 then youd most probably still hear half of Europe speaking German.

 

It's clearly still a very sensitive issue, there are so many "Ifs" involved, it's worth stating that one of the reasons the Soviet Union initially signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was because the belated British efforts to get the Soviets on side were apparently half-hearterd and patronising.

If one is to blame to Soviets and claim that their contributions were merely making up for their initial incompetence, the same can be said of the British and French who (Appeasement aside), were more than capable (Materially speaking) of defeating Germany when war was declared, when that is compounded by the underestimation of the Japanese, casualties are just a matter of a nation's willingness to accept them.

Similarly and arguably one could argue that the US isolationist policies of the 20s and 30s could have been considered encouraging to a European power bent on self-expansion.

I do not wish to single out any nation for criticism here, my point is that before a sweeping statement is made such as "Screw the Russian contribution, they deserved what they got", the US could have taken a more active interest in European and Asian affairs and prevented a large proportion of their losses, France and Britain could have taken a more active role in preventing German expansion, and yes, just as easily the Soviet Union could have stopped Germany before she invaded.

One could just as easily say "Screw the US effort, they were just making up for lost time".

We sit in judgement with the benefit of hindsight.

I do not think anyone here applauds Stalin, however credit must be given where it is due, regardless of the debatable posibilities of prosecuting the war with the just unconquered Western Allies, the Soviet Union did take on the majority of the German land forces and regardless of whether it was down to idiotic decisions or otherwise did take the lion's share of the casualties. Credit must be given to the ability of the people of the Soviet Union's ability to take such sacrifices.

 

I agree completely with Simonr 1978.

We must also not forget that though it was Stalin and most of the Russian leadership that comitted the blunders such as the invasion of Poland, giving aid to Hitler etc. It wasnt them that paid the price of the German invasion. It was the russian peasants, the soldiers who were illiterate and didnt understand politics that finally paid the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of their villages, towns, and sometimes their own homes.

 

True the Soviet people suffered...

I still see Stalins efforts as emboldening Hitler and given the German peoples fear of Stalin, I still consider the sum of his actions as a major player, casting him as a promoter of WWII.

Too bad for him, it blew up in his face. He did get to conquer more than just Poland at least.

As far as US isolationism, well, the Versailles treaty was not entirely supported here by President Wilson.

Some of your other comments cast Europe as a frail old women and the USA as a bunch of boy scouts.

I don't really see them as a 'blame America first' reaction, but the thought did cross my mind. I know you were merely making example.

My comments about Russia and the secret Poland & Baltic gambits are concrete, not merely an off handed example.

The US isolation reflected a severe economic recession and a pessimistic view of an imperial central Europe ruled by despots.


The treaties of Berlin (1926) Rappallo and Molotov were early warning signs, but Europe fostered Nazi and communist sympathizers. This includes large numbers of Soviets (Ukrainians) that initially supported Hitler. Many western Europeans also formed up in Waffen SS brigades. Just look at the various mercenaries in the Spanish civil war.



I dunno,

>One could just as easily say "Screw the US effort, they were just making up for lost time".

These conflicts originated in another hemisphere.. God help those who pulled us into it. Their foolishness remains a legacy today.

They were destroyed and we got richer. The Marshall plan over writes any blame for our justifiable isolationism. Russia suffered for more than 20 years, maybe even still today.


I have chores to do..

 

Interesting that you should mention the Spanish Civil War, in which after all the Soviets helped the side that was fighting the side the Nazis were supporting, so that they were indirectly enemies. In the end the Spanish Civil War isolated Germany withing Europe and forced it upon a frankly worthless ally, Italy. In spite of all this the Soviets only lost time and money in Spain.

I think every relation between the Soviet Union and Germany before 1941 was as unwilling, uncomfortable and opportunistically motivated as the eventual alliance between the West and the Soviet Union. This doesn't make the Soviet Union to blame for WW2, rather it shows that all politicians of the age are to blame for thinking only of themselves.

 

I am glad you found it interesting, I find your analysis equally interesting.

(more like it just proves all poltrixians are prostitutes)


:smok:

Many people say the roots of WWII lay in the end of WWI. I am so glad Europe has remained peaceful. We all know where the roots of the cold war are.

I have always wondered, but I knew the answer, why Britain and France did not declare war on the USSR for their part in the invasion of Poland.


The nightmare is they continued to occupy Poland for 50 years..

Like I said about politrixians.

 

Being utterly beaten senseless and/or bankrupted sort of douses your flame for a new war... At least, if you have a spark of realism left in you.

 

That about sums it up...

:bang: