Author
|
Topic: World War 2: A different perspective
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terry Johnson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1006
|
posted 21 June 2002 07:21 PM
quote: The Soviet Union was not an ally of Nazi Germany, to be precise, but the infamous Stalin-Hitler Pact (also known by the names of the ministers, Molotov and... forget the Nazi one) was a non-agression pact that was soon violated by the German forces.
To be precise, it was a little more than a non-aggression pact. It also gave the Soviet Union half of Poland, a big chunk of Rumania, and a free hand to seize the Baltic States. But Stalin, arguably, had good reason to sign it. He had tried repeatedly to enlist France and Britain in an anti-Nazi alliance. But they were more interested in setting Hitler loose in the East. And the pact, rather than causing WWII, might actually have ensured the eventual defeat of the Nazis. It led Hitler to turn against the Western democracies, giving the USSR time to build its military industry. And it ensured that Hitler would eventually find himself in an unwinnable two-front war. The USSR's leaders, like everyone else in Europe, knew that war with Hitler was inevitable, and reasoned it was better to enter it on the best possible conditions. That's my two cents worth, anyways.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356
|
posted 21 June 2002 07:41 PM
Anyone who has studied WWII in any small degree could have told you that the USSR had the most casualties. quote: Wasn't the Soviet Union allied with Germany at the start of the war? For their own expansionist reasons? They were definitely backing the wrong team
Unlike some countries, who wait to see who will win before entering global wars, the USSR made the notorious pact with the Nazis to avoid war with Germany, much as Neville Chamberlain made a pact with the Nazis to avoid war with Germany. Uncle Joe wasn't backing anyone but himself. Faced with the Japanese in Manchuria, he had to do something to cover his European front, since France and Britain had demonstrated by their failure to oppose Fascism in Spain that they were going to be no help against Hitler.
From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490
|
posted 22 June 2002 01:15 AM
quote: The Soviet Union was not an ally of Nazi Germany, to be precise, but the infamous Stalin-Hitler Pact (also known by the names of the ministers, Molotov and... forget the Nazi one) was a non-agression pact that was soon violated by the German forces.
'Twas Ribbentrop, BTW, on the German side. If anybody had been running the USSR except Stalin, a case could be made that that leader would have been less paranoid to the point of simply claiming Eastern Europe as its "sphere of influence" without the disastrous PR of forcing Communist governments on those countries - and, incidentally, more open to Marshall Plan aid (It was, in fact, offered to the Soviets, but Stalin said "up yours", essentially.)
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534
|
posted 22 June 2002 01:41 AM
You are right, dear Doctor. I'm getting senile - thought of Ribbentropp while bicycling to an errand... what a lovely thought...Of course Stalin also purged a lot of the staff of the Red Army... but the courage of the Soviet people has little to do with that paranoid tyrant, and, as I said in another thread, is the reason there is still a Stalingrad metro station in Paris... The Nazis exterminated Soviet prisoners-of-war outright(and Black colonial prisoners-of-war, notamment de la France, by the way). Another chilling episode of scientific racism was the question of "children with valuable genetic material", from Poland and elsewhere. These were kidnapped from their families and the successful Aryan types were placed with German families. Of course the rejects were gassed. There was a CBC documentary on this several years ago.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arch Stanton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2356
|
posted 24 June 2002 12:20 AM
quote: I also recall reading somewhere that the Soviet troops were almost suicidal in their perseverance because they knew that their own commanders would shoot them if they didn’t attack as ordered.
So "The Great Patriotic War meant nothing? "Comrade, kill your German" was a meaningless Commie slogan? Seeing what was in store for the Soviet people if the Nazis defeated the Red Army was not motivation in itself? To say that the troops fought only because they feared being shot is an insult to the soldiers who died to make your life possible.
From: Borrioboola-Gha | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 24 June 2002 12:38 AM
quote: To say that the troops fought only because they feared being shot is an insult to the soldiers who died to make your life possible.
Be that as it may, many Soviet soldiers were shot on the battlefield by their own side, not by their commanders, but by the NKVD, forerunner of the KGB, and often for merely hesitating fractionally under fire. For that matter, thousands of dedicated officers and men were arrested during the war and taken away from the front lines, and sent to GULAG, on vague suspicions and trumped-up charges. See the first-person account of one A. Solzhenitzyn, for example. The Soviet war effort was a heroic one. It was also a needlessly cruel and almost criminally inefficient one. Much the same could be said of other aspects of Soviet society.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
goodgoditsnottrue
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2401
|
posted 24 June 2002 03:11 AM
quote: Wasn't the Soviet Union allied with Germany at the start of the war? For their own expansionist reasons? They were definitely backing the wrong team.
Who was backing whom, was in questinon right up to the invasion of France. Many people talk about the betrayal of the Polish underground during the Warsaw uprising against the Nazi's at the end of the war. Pointing out that Marshall Zhukov's armies appeared to preffer to wait until the SS had finsihed the job against the Polish insurgents, before coninuing their offensive. But few people talk about the 'phoney war of 1939.' Right after the invasion of Poland by Germany and Russia, France and england tood by and did nothing even though they were technically at war. Between the Rhine and Berlin, there was literally a smattering of sub-grade German units defending the German heartland during the entire period of the invasion of Poland. The main body of the Wermacht, including all of its elite units being in Poland. But there was not even a glimmer of offensive action on the western front until the Germans attacked through the Ardennes, the next summer. Why did the French army and BEF not take this golden opportunity to attack? Even a limited offensive would have drawn off needed supplies and troops from the east, something that might very well at least prolonged the Polish defence. Before the war, there was a body of opinion in the west that held that Hitler was 'our man in Europe against the Reds,' and I am sure some of this thinking still held sway in the strategic planning of the British and the French, even after Poland was invaded. Hitler might have been sending signals along these lines too. This little known segment of World War Two, at the begining has always intrigued me. Who was backing whom, is indeed the question!
From: Tarana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 24 June 2002 01:26 PM
For a really different perspective on World War II, people should read any of the books by John Charmley on WWII, and especially his two volume biography of Churchill.The thesis of all of these is this: At a time when Britain was alone in its fight against the nazis, after the fall of France, only the United States could save Britain from defeat. It did so, but at a price. The price was set out in the Atlantic Charter, namely, that all tariff walls creating the British Empire, the so-called "sterling area", had to be eliminated, and each of the British colonies was to be participate in "free trade", meaning that US capital was to be allowed to compete everywhere. Charmely thinks Churchill sold out the British Empire and made Britain into a second-class power. [ June 24, 2002: Message edited by: jeff house ]
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
goodgoditsnottrue
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2401
|
posted 25 June 2002 03:04 AM
quote: The French, having "learned the lessons" of The Great War, were not going to waste their troops on futile offensives as the armies of the 14-18 war had done. They slyly remained safe behind the Maginot Line, waiting for the Boche to come and die.The Brits did a few things, like sink some boats and attempt to occupy Norway, but their army was completely unprepared for war in 1939.
Naw, it's not that simple. Saying that the Brits were not prepared for war, is largely a statement based on hindsight, as far as they knew, like the 'over-confident' French, they were prepared for it. Neither, even threatened agressive land manouvers at all, and Liddel Hart is quite clear about that fact that there was very little defending the 'Siegfried Line.' Even during WWI, the Germans were able to make substantial gains against the French at the begining of the war, due to the unpreparedness of the French. The lesson of WWI was, among other things, that the only time to attack was when the enemy was unprepared to defend. Those were the conditions on the Western Front in 1939. [ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: goodgoditsnottrue ]
From: Tarana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|