Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW2 in General > German and Soviet contribution to the starting of WW2


Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas June 24, 2006 10:17 am
QUOTE (D13-th_Mytzu @ Jun 23 2006, 09:51 AM)
Do not forget USSR attacked and occupied MANY teritories in Europe before the Germans attcked them. Can't this be considered an act that also lead to ww2 ? Romania, Finland, Poland, Esotnia, Latvia, etc. Romanians entered WW2 on Axis side because of Soviet agression in 1940, the finns started the war because of the soviet agression.. I think USSR must not be regarded as a peace loving nation who did not do anything to start ww2 - they did have a major contribution to it. Unless you consider the freedom of less powerfull states like Finland Romania, etc. do not matter in the overall picture ...
Did USSR help start WW2 ? Definately yes !

Didn't the Germans have lot to do with attacking Poland? I am not sure about the chronology, but did the Russias attack Estonia etc. first, or was it the Germans who attacked Poland, annexed Czechosolvakia etc.? Also, again I am not sure but I wonder if the Germans had anything to do with giving away parts of smaller countries to the Soviet Union in exchange for the USSR not making problems over their conquests and annexations.

I was also thinking that Romania entered the war on the Axis side partly because the Western Allies had been swept out of Europe by the Germans and, if Romania wanted to avoid a German invasion it had to join the Axis, or at the time it was the only sensible course of action, as well as from fear of Bolshevik attack.

It is certain that the USSR did have the ambition of taking over many countries and making all countries in the world Communist, and that it was a very brutal and evil dictatorship, and I think, if I had to pick between being governed by the Nazis and the Soviets, I would probably pick at a pinch the Nazis.

However, at the time of World War Two I think Stalin had toned down the Soviet Union's international ambitions, and the USSR seemed to have to some extent a defensive mentality, whereas the Nazi leadership was commited to conquering, subjugating and exploiting pretty much every other European Nation, by any means it saw fit, in disregard of all morality, even the kind of twisted morality used by the Communists.

To some extent the Germans might have claimed that they were forced to war to guarantee their international position, but the way they waged the war suggests this was only a minor point, and instead they turned it into an apocalyptic racial struggle for absolute domination which they then lost.

The smaller nations could probably have been better defended if, instead of having the Nazis threatening every European Country, Germany had had a more reasonable government and had not actually allied itself to the USSR, I suspect there would have been no problem then in Europe joining together to resist the Soviets, which they could have done extremely effectively. The Nazis were probably to blame for letting the Soviet Union get into the rest of Europe in the first place.

Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu June 27, 2006 08:21 am
QUOTE
However, at the time of World War Two I think Stalin had toned down the Soviet Union's international ambitions, and the USSR seemed to have to some extent a defensive mentality, whereas the Nazi leadership was commited to conquering, subjugating and exploiting pretty much every other European Nation, by any means it saw fit, in disregard of all morality, even the kind of twisted morality used by the Communists.


blink.gif what do you think happened to us and other nations ? We accidentally fell in USSR hands during their "defensive" mentality ? biggrin.gif laugh.gif
USSR by no means had a defensive mentality, however they defeated the other European agressor (Germany) and they wrote the history portraing themselfs as "poor defensive" nation lol.


QUOTE
The figures speak for themselves. At the end of the war, the number of US made trucks in Soviet use was about a third of the total.

Another ideea on how they ignore reality and write their own history (the soviets) - they always said the help from Allies was small and they won the war alone by thei own means (at least this is what I read in each of their own vision of history), look at those statistics Victor provided - without Allied help USSR would have had a HARD time winning anything..

Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu June 27, 2006 08:53 am
PS: "I was also thinking that Romania entered the war on the Axis side partly because the Western Allies had been swept out of Europe by the Germans and, if Romania wanted to avoid a German invasion it had to join the Axis, or at the time it was the only sensible course of action, as well as from fear of Bolshevik attack."

This is not why Romania went to war against USSR, the motiv was to regain our lost teritories - as you know USSR took a very big part of our country one year before we entered the war.
Allied powers after the war were not so quick to condemn USSR and their agressive nature, in time people got used to the false ideea that poor soviet union was only fighting a defensive war, but one only has to look at what they did before Germany attacked them, they were as well an agressor against Europe as was the nazi Germany. The fact that Germany allowed/agreed USSR to invade those teritories does not make comunist russia of those days less guilty of agression against Europe.

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas June 27, 2006 10:17 am
QUOTE (D13-th_Mytzu @ Jun 27 2006, 08:21 AM)


blink.gif what do you think happened to us and other nations ? We accidentally fell in USSR hands during their "defensive" mentality ? biggrin.gif laugh.gif


USSR by no means had a defensive mentality, however they defeated the other European agressor (Germany) and they wrote the history portraing themselfs as "poor defensive" nation lol.



I think you fell into USSR hands after you and the Germans invaded the USSR and were forced back out. The offensives that led to Romania being occupied by the Soviets were part of a campaign the Russians were fighting to destroy the IIIrd Reich, and it's allies, who invaded Russia in 1941, devastated it, killed large numbers of it's inhabitants etc. The 1944 offensive was not an unprovoked 'aggressive attack'.
It is obvious that the fact that Russia took over these nations was not wholly defensive, and was part of the expansion of the USSR, but it only did so as a result and consequence of destroying the German invading forces, and overthrowing the Nazi regime. You could argue that it was actually partly defensive...when you think about it.

As I said before, I was not saying that USSR was purely defensive and had no role at all in starting World War Two, but it's role is small compared to the Germans, and...

German defeat meant that the USSR had a reason for invading Romania, Hungary, Eastern Europe.
The way the Germans waged war in Russia gave the USSR more reason and an excuse, and an opportunity for conquering Eastern European nations, and ended up strengthening the communist regime.

I think Romania was unlucky (if that is a strong enough word...), like some of the other Eastern European Nations, it did not have the aim of waging aggressive war, only recovering it's territory, but it ended up capturing territory that never belonged to it, and supporting an ally that was commiting large numbers of big war crimes, and also participating to some extent in some of those crimes. It then suffered the consequences of German actions, which Romanian policy had nothing to do with, and also the consequences of some actions it had commited in imitation of the Germans. sad.gif

I would not accept the USSR propaganda about it being wholly defensive, because, like lots of Soviet propaganda it is rubbish, but even so, they did have some factual basis for what they said, and the Nazis managed to make the Russians seem like liberators in many parts of the USSR, which was a big acheivement. ph34r.gif

Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu June 27, 2006 11:25 am
QUOTE
I think you fell into USSR hands after you and the Germans invaded the USSR and were forced back out.


Negative - as I already said a very big part of Romanian teritory fell to soviet union BEFORE 1941.We DID NOT invade USSR initially, we only took back what was rightfully ours. Later in the war it was decided to enter soviet occupied teritories.

QUOTE
It is obvious that the fact that Russia took over these nations was not wholly defensive, and was part of the expansion of the USSR, but it only did so as a result and consequence of destroying the German invading forces, and overthrowing the Nazi regime. You could argue that it was actually partly defensive...when you think about it.


Well I have to remind you USSR invaded other nations BEFORE nazi Germany started war against USSR so there is no excuse to the fact they invaded other nations just to "defend" temselfs lol.


BTW: I think you missunderstood some of the things I said (might be a language problem) - what I am trying to say is that comunist russia invaded almost 1/3 of romanian teritory (today standards), invaded Finland, Poland and other countries at least 1 year before the germans attacked them, this clearly shows an agressive politics towards European states, how many countries did USSR invade ? How many countries did nazi germany invade ? (prior to germany attack on russia) - you see, the fact that german forces were much more efficient and occupied reacher countries then USSR does not absolve comunist russia of their guilt of attacking Europe same way the germans did, what can be said in their defence is they were weaker (back then) than the german forces and could not occupy even more then they did.

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas June 29, 2006 07:42 pm
QUOTE (D13-th_Mytzu @ Jun 27 2006, 11:25 AM)


Negative - as I already said a very big part of Romanian teritory fell to soviet union BEFORE 1941.We DID NOT invade USSR initially, we only took back what was rightfully ours. Later in the war it was decided to enter soviet occupied teritories.

QUOTE
It is obvious that the fact that Russia took over these nations was not wholly defensive, and was part of the expansion of the USSR, but it only did so as a result and consequence of destroying the German invading forces, and overthrowing the Nazi regime. You could argue that it was actually partly defensive...when you think about it.


Well I have to remind you USSR invaded other nations BEFORE nazi Germany started war against USSR so there is no excuse to the fact they invaded other nations just to "defend" temselfs lol.


BTW: I think you missunderstood some of the things I said (might be a language problem) - what I am trying to say is that comunist russia invaded almost 1/3 of romanian teritory (today standards), invaded Finland, Poland and other countries at least 1 year before the germans attacked them, this clearly shows an agressive politics towards European states, how many countries did USSR invade ? How many countries did nazi germany invade ? (prior to germany attack on russia) - you see, the fact that german forces were much more efficient and occupied reacher countries then USSR does not absolve comunist russia of their guilt of attacking Europe same way the germans did, what can be said in their defence is they were weaker (back then) than the german forces and could not occupy even more then they did.

I was talking about post World War Two there anyway, when Stalin wanted lots of space between Russia itself and his nearest enemies, as a kind of barrier, so war would not be fought so quickly on Russian soil again. Thats not the only reason that the USSR wanted the Eastern European countries, but it is one reason. Also, just because I am stating that is how I have read that that was how some people in the Soviet government were thinking I am not saying I approve of what they were doing, or taking it totally at face value.

What could be important is what the Soviet leaders were thinking, what their aims were in the build up to World War II, when they invaded the smaller countries. From what I have read, the more extreme and aggressive parts of the Communist Revolutionary program about making all of Europe Communist had been lain to one side by the 1930s. I have got the impression that Stalin had decided to concentrate on 'building socialism' inside the USSR.
However, the Soviets were still very ready to use international instability to aggressively conquer some countries, or parts of countries.

What is important in trying to assess Soviet responsibility in starting World War Two is which countries, and which parts of countries...:
As far as I know:
Finland
Poland (but on the coat tails of Nazi Germany, after a German attack)
Baltic States
Parts of Romania
These were nearly all countries, or parts of countries which had formerly been part
of the Czarist Empire, so it could be said that the Soviet Union was aggressive, and did invade countries, but only countries it saw as belonging to Russia, setting the borders back to the pre-1917 ones.

This is still aggression, and not morally right, but, compare it to Germany:
Up to 1941:
Austria
Czechslovakia
Poland
Norway
Denmark
Holland
Belgium
Luxembourg
French Empire
British Empire
Yugoslavia
Greece
I note British and French Empire because in 1940 Britain still ruled about a fifth or a quarter of the world, France about an eighth. The key thing is the scale and the aims of the aggression. The Germans did not aim just to reincorporate territory previously ruled by the Reich pre-1918, they attacked multiple sovereign nations, one after the other, with the aim of conquering whole nations, nations that had never before had been part of a German Reich.

I think, for the Russians to bear a similar responsibility to the Germans for the start of World War Two they would have had to attack, and overcome, not just part of Romania, but all of Romania, Wallachia, Moldavia, included etc. then Hungary, then Bulgaria then Yugoslavia, Austria, Poland, Italy etc. They would have also have had to be consciously planning and building up their armed forces with the express aim of that kind of aggressive conquest, throughout the 1930s.

I would think Russian actions pre-world war two were similar to those of a conventionally minded aggressive power, whereas what gave World War Two its special character was a new and extreme form of rapid and aggressive meglomaniac empire building, together with unusually brutal and backward treatment of conquered nations. The Germans were the main innovators and instigators in that respect.
The Russians were backwards and primitive, the Germans deliberately and consciously brought themselves to that level.

Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu June 29, 2006 10:03 pm
I think USSR was deeply involved in the start of ww2. Also, the fact that it overrun several European countries (until they reached german influence) clearly shows how they thought. Saying they only did it for defensive purposes is not an acceptable excuse in my opinion. Conquer 6 or 12 countries, it is same miserable and anti-human action.

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas July 03, 2006 11:39 am
I know you think USSR was deeply involved in the start of world war two, I would just like to know what evidence there is that they had the kind of aggressive intentions that could have started a world wide conflict of the scale of World War Two.

That the USSR had aggressive intentions and acted on them is evident, but that does not equate with necessarily being deeply invovled in the start of World War Two, or of the USSR bearing the same kind of level of guilt as the German Reich.

Also, it is wrong to say that in itself that the aggressive actions the USSR launched had the same kind of value as the German ones, unless you are talking in general terms. Otherwise you end up saying that attacking a small nation like Estonia or invading part of Poland inhabited mainly by Ukranian and Russian speakers is EXACTLY equivalent to attacking or occupying a nation of the size of France, or Greece, or Yugoslavia etc. etc. etc.

And though it is rather crude, all Nations in World War Two commited many unpleasant and anti-humanitarian actions, including the Romanians, who, I think, killed a large number of Jewish people and other civilians in the parts of the Soviet Union they occupied, though not as many as the Germans.

However, the USSR did commit many crimes at other times and in other places, I found one good book about this, it is called 'O Livro Negro do Communismo' and is published by the Brazilian Army Publishing House. It is a translation from a French book, the original is called 'Le Livre Noir du Communisme'.

Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu July 03, 2006 12:05 pm
QUOTE
I know you think USSR was deeply involved in the start of world war two, I would just like to know what evidence there is that they had the kind of aggressive intentions that could have started a world wide conflict of the scale of World War Two.


They invaded Poland.
They invaded Finland.
They invaded Romania.
They invaded Baltic countries.

So invading smaller and not so reacher countries as France is ok and not considered worthy enough agression ? smile.gif

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas July 03, 2006 08:18 pm
QUOTE (D13-th_Mytzu @ Jul 3 2006, 12:05 PM)

They invaded Poland.
They invaded Finland.
They invaded Romania.
They invaded Baltic countries.

So invading smaller and not so reacher countries as France is ok and not considered worthy enough agression ? smile.gif

I don't think I said it was OK I just said I didn't think that invading PARTS of the countries you name was a good enough grounds for claiming the USSR was as aggressive as Germany, or had as much role in starting World War Two as Germany.

Just because a country like the USSR is amoral and aggressive it does not mean it contributed to starting World War Two. What I was hoping you might at some point do is explain exactly how and why the USSR attacking those countries contributed to starting World War Two, to what extent you think it contributed.

How did invading Finland directly contribute to starting World War Two?

Didn't the USSR invade Poland a week or more after the Germans had? Basically moving into territory that was barely occupied by the Polish army?

Didn't the Germans play a part in forcing Romania to give up it's territory without a fight to the USSR in 1940?

In all these things the driving force behind all the foreign policy initiatives that led to widespread war was either German or Italian aggression.

The USSR did take advantage of German aggression for it's own gain, and through the Communist parties in various allied countries, the Nazi-Soviet pact etc. did contribute to undermining the allied cause in the first years of the war, but it was just following the German lead and taking advantage of it for it's own gain. Unless you can show me otherwise, that the USSR was controlling the situation and organising and promoting German aggressive acts...

If you are speaking in moral terms, again, the big difference is in the goals and scope of the different aggressive acts each Nation commited. As I mentioned before the USSR's acts were small compared to the German ones. Here, the fact that both Finland and the Baltic Countries weren't just small but really really small countries does matter. And the fact that USSR didn't occupy all of either Poland or Romania, and none of the 'core' territories of these Nations.

Obviously the difference with the German actions is big. German and Italian actions led to the war becoming a huge world war, and led to many of the features that proved to define World War Two, and give it it's special nature.

The USSR and it's people were also punished for their aggressive actions in 1939-40 by the way the Germans and other axis powers treated them after 1941 anyway. Unless you are saying that the millions of Russian, French, Yugoslav, Greek, Polish, Belgian, Dutch, Czech soldiers and civilians who died at the hands of the Germans and their allies actually don't matter as much as the Romanians and Finns, and the Baltic peoples. Because they had the honour of being killed by the Germans?

Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu July 03, 2006 09:39 pm
I don't know who killed more russians - the germans or the russians themselfs (I tend to belive the 2nd), as for punishing - the germans treated them very bad (inhuman I would say) for 4+ years while they treated bad half of Europe for half of century. USSR by making certain pacts with nazi Germany to "legalize" their agression, gave green light to the germans to invade Poland then attack western countries. Also by invading Finland and Romania they got those two countries into the war alongside Germany, the help of both countries contributed a lot to the axis war effort and without it germans would have been in a critical situation during their war against comunist russia. USSR encouraged the start of ww2 and took part in its plotting.

Posted by: sid guttridge July 05, 2006 10:29 am
Hi Guys,

Stalin might well have started a WWII himself given time. However, the fact of the matter is that Hitler actually did start it.

Stalin was an extremely brutal, aggressive dictator, but he can only be held accountable for his own actions, not those of Hitler.

Cheers,

Sid.

Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu July 05, 2006 01:16 pm
Among his actions are the agreements with Germany to split Europe between themselfs and giving Germany greenlight to start invading Poland and other countries. I fail to udnerstand how you cannot consider this a direct involvment of soviet union in the start of ww2.

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas July 05, 2006 05:32 pm
QUOTE (D13-th_Mytzu @ Jul 3 2006, 09:39 PM)
I don't know who killed more russians - the germans or the russians themselfs (I tend to belive the 2nd), as for punishing - the germans treated them very bad (inhuman I would say) for 4+ years while they treated bad half of Europe for half of century. USSR by making certain pacts with nazi Germany to "legalize" their agression, gave green light to the germans to invade Poland then attack western countries. Also by invading Finland and Romania they got those two countries into the war alongside Germany, the help of both countries contributed a lot to the axis war effort and without it germans would have been in a critical situation during their war against comunist russia. USSR encouraged the start of ww2 and took part in its plotting.

From the figures I have in my head I think the Germans and their allies, but mainly the Germans, managed to kill at least 20 million Russian and other Soviet civilians, and about 9 or 10 million Russian service men died in the war. Perhaps not all of these casualties were exactly the Germans fault, perhaps the way the Soviets were so careless about their citizens also played a part. It's still a huge figure, for, as you say, only four years.

The figures for Stalin's regime are something like 20 or 30 million people dying through various causes, I think, though I am not sure, I think those are the ones in Robert Service's briography of Stalin.

It's also true, as you say, that the USSR did nothing to curb Nazi aggression and did lots to profit from it, the main reason you cannot say it started World War II or played a major role in starting it is that most of the initiatives for aggression came from Germany, the USSR just following what the latter did, not planning the things in concert.

Another important thing is that World War Two is more than just the Eastern Front, the rest of it, the USSR had no hand in starting: It played no role as far as I know in provoking Japanese aggression, no role in the planning of Hitler's conquest of Western Europe, no role in Italian aggression in Africa and the Middle East.

I am thinking that World War Two is defined by two particular powers (Germany and Japan), aiming for global domination of gigantic tracts of territory, and attacking successively numerous other Nations of a size equivalent or greater than themselves, something the Germans and Japanese were actively planning and aiming for in the 30s. This is not to say that the Nations the USSR attacked are unimportant, just that the scale of it's ambitions were much more limited, and didn't involve planning for major scale aggressive conquest. This is why I don't think it's role is the same as Germany or Japan's in starting World War Two.

Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu July 05, 2006 06:36 pm
I am sorry but I do not agree with such a interpretation of the facts. I don't understand why you are trying to minimize USSR's involvment in the start of WW2. For obvious and logical reasons in my view USSR is directly involved in the start of WW2. Your logic has major flaws in my opinion (for the same reasons I already stated several times) - this is not aimed as a personal attack at you, it is a pure opinion based on logic and facts.

Posted by: sid guttridge July 06, 2006 11:33 am
Hi D13th Mytzu,

Nobody is claiming that the USSR didn't contribute to the start of WWII or take advantage of it. However, it didn't actually join the war until nearly two years after it broke out and then only because it was attacked.

There is thus no reasonable equation between German and Soviet contributions to the outbreak of WWII. It was essentially a Nazi German-induced war.

As I posted before:

"Stalin might well have started a WWII himself, given time. However, the fact of the matter is that Hitler actually did start it.

Stalin was an extremely brutal, aggressive dictator, but he can only be held accountable for his own actions, not those of Hitler."

Cheers,

Sid.

Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu July 06, 2006 12:05 pm
QUOTE
Nobody is claiming that the USSR didn't contribute to the start of WWII or take advantage of it.


Then I understood wrong wacko.gif

Posted by: Dénes July 06, 2006 01:40 pm
QUOTE (sid guttridge @ Jul 6 2006, 05:33 PM)
Nobody is claiming that the USSR didn't contribute to the start of WWII or take advantage of it. However, it didn't actually join the war until nearly two years after it broke out and then only because it was attacked.

The USSR joined W.W. II on 17 Sept. 1939, by attacking Poland as an ally of Hitler's Germany.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Dénes July 06, 2006 02:07 pm
There is an attempt, perpetuated by many historians, both Western - some abiding to pressure of the powerful lobby of a certain group - as well as Russian to declare Hitler and his empire as a unique evil, with nothing to compare to it throughout the entire history of mankind. These authors, in order not to offer a rightful "contender" to Hitler's unique position in history, constantly try to diminish "Joe" Stalin's actions, alongside those of the Soviet Union and Communism, in general.

However, to anyone even passingly, but genuinely interested in the history of the XXth Century Europe is becomes rather quickly clear that Hitler and Stalin - although not identical - were certainly similar, as were Nazism and Communism. Anyone denying this is either ignorant, or biased, or probably has an agenda of some sorts.

Luckily, here on our forum we can discuss issues openly, without being subject to any pressure.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: mabadesc July 06, 2006 02:17 pm
Denes - Great post! Accurately describes today's mainstream, PC view.

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas July 06, 2006 05:50 pm
QUOTE (Dénes @ Jul 6 2006, 02:07 PM)
There is an attempt, perpetuated by many historians, both Western - some abiding to pressure of the powerful lobby of a certain group - as well as Russian to declare Hitler and his empire as a unique evil, with nothing to compare to it throughout the entire history of mankind. These authors, in order not to offer a rightful "contender" to Hitler's unique position in history, constantly try to diminish "Joe" Stalin's actions, alongside those of the Soviet Union and Communism, in general.

However, to anyone even passingly, but genuinely interested in the history of the XXth Century Europe is becomes rather quickly clear that Hitler and Stalin - although not identical - were certainly similar, as were Nazism and Communism. Anyone denying this is either ignorant, or biased, or probably has an agenda of some sorts.

Luckily, here on our forum we can discuss issues openly, without being subject to any pressure.

Gen. Dénes

I think the above, Hitler being considered as a unique evil etc. as Gen. Denes notes in his first paragraph, happens more in the West, it certainly does in the UK a lot, simply, I think, because many people are ignorant about Communism. Certainly many of my contemporaries are very hazy about the fact that it even ever existed at all, never mind the names of anyone connected with it. And since the Russians were our allies in World War Two acknowledging what they were like would cause problems in the many of the current readings of what World War Two meant.

I think this also happens in the Uk because the main reason Nazism is mentioned now is in connection with racism and the holocaust. It is used as an example to warn people of the dangers of racism.

In some ways Nazism was unique in history, Communism perhaps even more unique.
I think Nazism's evil was in the following, and it is, I think, a fairly HUGE evil:

The Nazi belief that problems in society were due either to foreign conspiracies and interference, or cultural degenerency (defined as anything conservatives and narrow minded cretins didn't like or couldn't understand) caused by foreigners and malintentioned perverted people who were mentally ill.
The other Nazi belief that violent conquest was fine, that the world aught to exist exclusively for the benefit of the German people, and that in all cases the only moral law that applies is the law of the jungle, do whatever you like to anyone, provided you do it first and they are unable to retaliate. Unfortunately, the Fuhrer miscalculated and the Third reich proved not to be the fitest Nation, which was a good thing for everyone else.

The Nazi's put most of these principals into action and produced a massive blot on the twentieth century in the process.

Communisms evil aspects:

A better general idea than the Nazi's, that the world aught to be a universal brotherhood where everyone was equal, but, the way to achieve this...

Give absolute power to a tiny group of narrow minded left wing cretins who claimed that they were in possession of an absolute historical truth, and therefore had the right to do whatever they pleased to impose this on everyone else.
Try to create 'Proletariats' everywhere so you can have revolutions, even when there is no reason for a proletariat to exist there.
Use slave labour on a huge scale.
Deprive everyone of any rights, set up extremely paranoid police states, murder MASSIVE numbers of people for no reason to maintain everyone in fear. Let no moral idea or anything else stand in the way of this.
Steal Nations histories, cultures, Religions, and either twist them or eliminate them (again, if they don't appeal to the small group of narrow minded cretins)
Twist and high jack humanitarian values in people across the world in order to maintain a small group of people in absolute power/ expand the Russian empire.

I think, though similarly destructive, the Nazis tended to kill more foreigners, the Communists were more indiscriminate, their own citizens, generally anyone at all.

Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu July 06, 2006 05:51 pm
Good to know I am not the onlyone who thinks so - was begining to think I'm a loonatic and my sense of logic being wrong.

Posted by: Jeff_S July 06, 2006 08:29 pm
QUOTE (Dénes @ Jul 6 2006, 09:07 AM)
There is an attempt, perpetuated by many historians, both Western - some abiding to pressure of the powerful lobby of a certain group - as well as Russian to declare Hitler and his empire as a unique evil, with nothing to compare to it throughout the entire history of mankind.

I could not agree more. The sad fact is that not only is Hitler not unique, but Hitler and Stalin are not unique either. Human history is a bloody story.

QUOTE
Luckily, here on our forum we can discuss issues openly, without being subject to any pressure.


We can? ohmy.gif From what I have heard we live under the constant threat of banning by oppressive moderators

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas July 06, 2006 09:34 pm
QUOTE (D13-th_Mytzu @ Jul 6 2006, 12:05 PM)
QUOTE
Nobody is claiming that the USSR didn't contribute to the start of WWII or take advantage of it.


Then I understood wrong wacko.gif

I think I did say that the USSR did take part and contribute to the build up to world war two in most of my posts! I was just querying whether it's role was as big as Japan or Germany's.
Also, I don't think USSR didn't play as big role as Germany for any positive humanitarian/enlgihtened reason, just at that point Stalin wasn't thinking along those expansionist lines to as big an extent as Hitler. USSR was never a champion of freedom or the liberty of Nations.

Posted by: Dénes July 06, 2006 09:41 pm
QUOTE (saudadesdefrancesinhas @ Jul 7 2006, 03:34 AM)
Stalin wasn't thinking along those expansionist lines to as big an extent as Hitler.

Did you ever take a look on the crest of the USSR? It's the Globe, all in red, with the sickle and hammer over it. Apparently, the Soviets intended to "liberate" the whole world, while Hitler wanted to conquer "only" Europe and, perhaps, northern Afrika, the latter for strategic purposes only.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu July 07, 2006 06:04 am
Don't know how to exactly quntify the two contributions to the start of ww2, but one thing is sure: soviet union played a major role in it - maybe a little smaller then germany (who could say) but still a major one. Germany attacked Poland and invaded other countries AFTER it secretly signed treaties with USSR in which they split Europe between them. USSR was not suppose to interfere with nazi Germany claims while the Germans would leave USSR invade as agreed. USSR DID have a major role in the start of ww2 - if you wish to scale the contributions and give them marks, maybe it will get a lesser one then Germany but still a very big one.

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas July 07, 2006 09:18 am
QUOTE (D13-th_Mytzu @ Jul 7 2006, 06:04 AM)
Don't know how to exactly quntify the two contributions to the start of ww2, but one thing is sure: soviet union played a major role in it - maybe a little smaller then germany (who could say) but still a major one. Germany attacked Poland and invaded other countries AFTER it secretly signed treaties with USSR in which they split Europe between them. USSR was not suppose to interfere with nazi Germany claims while the Germans would leave USSR invade as agreed. USSR DID have a major role in the start of ww2 - if you wish to scale the contributions and give them marks, maybe it will get a lesser one then Germany but still a very big one.

I was making a crude attempt to scale the contrinbutions in my other emails.

I think, roughly, it can be done. Here are the points I am thinking of that could be relevant:

a) Where did the initiative for the secret treaty which divided Europe up come from? Was it the USSR or Germany? I would guess it was all done at Germany's suggestion. This information will be found in books about German and Soviet foreign policy before the war.

cool.gif Did the treaty allow for Germany to attack and then occupy all of Western Europe, the Italian attacks in Africa etc?

This is where I think the number of nations attacked and the comparative scale of Germany and Soviet ambition becomes important:

USSR took parts of two larger nations, but without really fighting, took over the Baltic states without a struggle, the only armed action being against Finland.
These parts of Nations all bordered on the USSR, and the USSR did not attack anywhere further afield, nor, apart from in the case of the Baltic Countries, occupy whole foreign nations.

Germany attacked lots of countries in large scale military campaigns, all over Europe, and aimed at dominating every country in Europe, including the USSR.

c) Germany really caused the war to spread by actually attacking the USSR itself, and turning that into a major bloodbath at the same time, for no apparent reason.

In the actual build up to World War Two in the 1930s, I would say the Soviet Union played an important role, as far as allowing Germany to attack Poland goes, about 40% to Germany's 60%

As far as contributing to the development of World War Two into the huge world conflict it became, I would say USSR's role was about 20% at most, if not less, Germany's being the rest 80%+, Japan in the Pacific, with America playing a small role.

Posted by: dead-cat July 07, 2006 09:49 am
QUOTE

c) Germany really caused the war to spread by actually attacking the USSR itself, and turning that into a major bloodbath at the same time, for no apparent reason.

the reason is quite clear.
after the successful campaign on the western front, the soviet union changed their foreign politics to send the UK a diplomatic signal of encouragement.
during fall 1940 Hitler came to the conclusion that he might have to go to war against the SU before defeating the UK.
It was the aim of the SU (a policy consistent since the early 20ies) to encourage a conflict between the "capitalistic" powers, the longer the better.
actually Hitler, was reacting to developments as he lost the diplomatic initiative at least as late sept. 1939 (in his realtionship with the SU), by making himself dependent of Stalins goodwill.
between the 2, Stalin was more lucky in his gamble but with a very narrow margin, having manouvered himself in a precarious situation 1940.

Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu July 07, 2006 10:25 am
Yet again you try to minimze the role played by the soviet union in the start of WW2. The fact that Germans had more success at invading and the fact USSR managed to get some (NOT ALL !!!) teritories without fight and the fact that USSR might have not be the one syuggesting the treaties first but they accpeted anyway, do not make USSR a peace loving country who didn't play a major role in the start of WW2.

How can you be sure where the initiative came from ? How can you be sure that even if the Germans were the first to officialy talk about the treaties they weren't encouraged to do so by USSR ? Even if it is so, how can it be better ? USSR agreed and applied such an evil plan for humanity - they share the responsability together with the nazi germany for this.
France and UK declared war on Germany first so the attack in the West has a different basis and was initiated by France and UK.

USSR took parts of many nations and others they took entirely and not all were without fighting. Does the liberty of people from less powerfull nations then Framce are of little importance to humanity ? Do only big nations as France or others count - doesn't everyone has the same right to self-determination and freedom ? How can you say Germany was worse attacking a country who first declared war on Germany then USSR invading countries that had no querel with it ? The freedom of each individual is the same, one is not bigger then the other, they are all equal - and it is the same thing for countries populated with individuals.

Germany spread the war - no doubt about it, as it is no doubt that USSR played major part in the start of ww2.

Posted by: sid guttridge July 07, 2006 01:43 pm
Hi Denes,

Nope. Terchnically not. The USSR joined WWII when Germany attacked it.

The occupation of Eastern Poland was part of the diplomatic fall out of the Molotov-Robbentrop Pact. The Polish government instructed that no resistance be offered (it had little choice) and the occupation did not commit the USSR to continuous miliary operations until 1945. Only Operation Barbarossa did that.

(Yes, I know that several thousand Soviet troops became casualties fighting the Poles in September 1939, but this was not at the behest of the Polish government.)

Who are these authors and books who contend that Hitler was a unique evil?

I haven't seen a single name or book mentioned in support of this proposition yet.

If anything the reverse is the case and Hitler and Stalin are talked of in pretty much similar terms. The focus on Hitler is only because he triggered the wider war and it was his forces that the Western Liberal Democracies fought in WWII. The USSR was ground down in the much less glamorous and much less bloody Cold War.

Cheers,

Sid.

Posted by: Jeff_S July 07, 2006 07:48 pm
QUOTE (sid guttridge @ Jul 7 2006, 08:43 AM)
Who are these authors and books who contend that Hitler was a unique evil?

I haven't seen a single name or book mentioned in support of this proposition yet.


This doesn't directly answer your question Sid, and I can't quote chapter and verse on an author who does exactly what Dénes described. But I would still submit that it is indicative of the way that Naziism and its victims are accorded a unique status.

As you probably know, Hitler's victims have a museum memorializing them in downtown Washington DC, established by US law. Do Stalin's victims have such a museum? No. Mao? Communism in general? Pol Pot? Rwanda? Bosnia? Armenia? No to all of these. What about the American Civil War, or the opening of the American West, pivotal events in US history? No again. Actually, while the US has monuments, I'm not aware of any other federally-funded museum in the US dedicated specifically to one event. And this is an event that the US was associated with mostly through its role in helping to defeat the Nazis, not as a perpetrator or a victim.

Holocaust. What does this word evoke? It did not always refer to the victims of Naziism. It was just an utterly destructive, all consuming event, usually by fire. Now consider the genocides I mentioned above. Have any of them been given ownership of a word from the English language? Stalin has his "Great Terror", but by itself out of context these words do not make most people think of Stalin, or the Soviet Union, or communism. "Cultural Revolution" misses too, as it was the name given by the Chinese themself to this period of their history, and it does not refer just to the murders committed. If anything, it has been reduced to kitsch culture -- I can buy Mao's face on a t-shirt, but I haven't seen Hitler's or Himmler's. "Killing Fields" comes close, but this is due in large part to the film by that name and may fade as the events become more distant. "Gulag" is the only word I can think of that is directly associated with a specific episode of repression, but this wasn't an English word to start with.

I would say Hitler and Naziism are definitely accorded a unique status. As with anything else, each is entitled to his or her own view as to whether they deserve this. Ultimately, every historical event is unique in some sense.

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas July 08, 2006 09:46 am
QUOTE (D13-th_Mytzu @ Jul 7 2006, 10:25 AM)
Yet again you try to minimze the role played by the soviet union in the start of WW2. The fact that Germans had more success at invading and the fact USSR managed to get some (NOT ALL !!!) teritories without fight and the fact that USSR might have not be the one syuggesting the treaties first but they accpeted anyway, do not make USSR a peace loving country who didn't play a major role in the start of WW2.


I didn't say it did. It just depends what you mean by 'Major' role.

Anyway, if you read what I posted...I thought in crude terms USSR might have played something like a 40% role, Germany 60% in the actual outbreak of war in 1939:


************USSR 40%*************

That is quite a major role.

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas July 08, 2006 09:55 am
QUOTE (D13-th_Mytzu @ Jul 7 2006, 10:25 AM)

How can you be sure where the initiative came from ? How can you be sure that even if the Germans were the first to officialy talk about the treaties they weren't encouraged to do so by USSR ? Even if it is so, how can it be better ? USSR agreed and applied such an evil plan for humanity - they share the responsability together with the nazi germany for this.
France and UK declared war on Germany first so the attack in the West has a different basis and was initiated by France and UK.


You could try reading books about foreign policy in the 1930s, and which Nations had aggressive and expansionist plans that they were quite open about.

You could also ask to what exactly the USSR agreed with Germany.

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying, I am DEFINITELY NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT THE USSR HAD SOME MORAL OBJECTION TO AGGRESSION, just that they never planned on aggression on the same scale as Germany.

This is better only in some much as the USSR was not a deeply commited to as warlike and aggressive foreign policy as Germany.

The problem with Nazism, which makes it different to many other aggressive Nations in moral terms, is that aggressive conquest on a world scale was at the heart of it's policy, was one of the main aspects of it's policy, that war and conquest is a good in itself.

Many Nations in the past have conquered and attacked their neighbours, they just generally don't do it in such a vast and gratuitous way as the Germans.


Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas July 08, 2006 10:17 am
QUOTE (D13-th_Mytzu @ Jul 7 2006, 10:25 AM)

France and UK declared war on Germany first so the attack in the West has a different basis and was initiated by France and UK.

USSR took parts of many nations and others they took entirely and not all were without fighting. Does the liberty of people from less powerfull nations then Framce are of little importance to humanity ? Do only big nations as France or others count - doesn't everyone has the same right to self-determination and freedom ? How can you say Germany was worse attacking a country who first declared war on Germany then USSR invading countries that had no querel with it ? The freedom of each individual is the same, one is not bigger then the other, they are all equal - and it is the same thing for countries populated with individuals.

Germany spread the war - no doubt about it, as it is no doubt that USSR played major part in the start of ww2.

I think this happened because the Nazis had attacked two of France and Britain's allies, Poland and Czechslovakia. Also, Britain and France had made themselves look ridiculous by trying to appease Hitler in the years leading up to the war (Munich Agreement etc.), which only encouraged his aggressive intentions.

There is no problem with saying that it is the individual that matters. If you are a citizen of one of the smaller Nations it will be extremely bad to see your country conquered and destroyed, in the same way as a citizen of a large one.

But, in France, the UK, Greece, Belgium, etc etc. there are simply a lot more individuals than in Finland etc. Millions and millions more. So, attacking so many individuals must have a greater weight than attacking a smaller number, if they are in all other ways equal.

Also, if only part of your country is attacked, you are still left with your capital city, your culture and government, the chance of getting back what is lost. Not if your whole country is subjugated. This also makes the actions different.

It is easy to say why Germany is considerably worse: though in legal terms France and Britain declared war on Germany, Germany had put them in a position of being obliged to do so by attacking their allies Poland and Czechslovakia, knowing France and Britain would then be forced to declare war.

It is wrong also to say that the countries USSR attacked had no quarrel with the USSR, when they had all fought wars with the USSR in the recent past, and all the territories involved had until 1918 actually being ruled by Russians, or part of the Russian Empire.


Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas July 08, 2006 10:33 am
QUOTE (Jeff_S @ Jul 7 2006, 07:48 PM)
QUOTE (sid guttridge @ Jul 7 2006, 08:43 AM)
Who are these authors and books who contend that Hitler was a unique evil?

I haven't seen a single name or book mentioned in support of this proposition yet.


This doesn't directly answer your question Sid, and I can't quote chapter and verse on an author who does exactly what Dénes described. But I would still submit that it is indicative of the way that Naziism and its victims are accorded a unique status.

As you probably know, Hitler's victims have a museum memorializing them in downtown Washington DC, established by US law. Do Stalin's victims have such a museum? No. Mao? Communism in general? Pol Pot? Rwanda? Bosnia? Armenia? No to all of these. What about the American Civil War, or the opening of the American West, pivotal events in US history? No again. Actually, while the US has monuments, I'm not aware of any other federally-funded museum in the US dedicated specifically to one event. And this is an event that the US was associated with mostly through its role in helping to defeat the Nazis, not as a perpetrator or a victim.

Holocaust. What does this word evoke? It did not always refer to the victims of Naziism. It was just an utterly destructive, all consuming event, usually by fire. Now consider the genocides I mentioned above. Have any of them been given ownership of a word from the English language? Stalin has his "Great Terror", but by itself out of context these words do not make most people think of Stalin, or the Soviet Union, or communism. "Cultural Revolution" misses too, as it was the name given by the Chinese themself to this period of their history, and it does not refer just to the murders committed. If anything, it has been reduced to kitsch culture -- I can buy Mao's face on a t-shirt, but I haven't seen Hitler's or Himmler's. "Killing Fields" comes close, but this is due in large part to the film by that name and may fade as the events become more distant. "Gulag" is the only word I can think of that is directly associated with a specific episode of repression, but this wasn't an English word to start with.

I would say Hitler and Naziism are definitely accorded a unique status. As with anything else, each is entitled to his or her own view as to whether they deserve this. Ultimately, every historical event is unique in some sense.

I think Nazism may be accorded a unique status in the Western World, it isn't in China, Japan, the Far East, South America etc, Eastern Europe.
This is because it was a Western European thing.
Nazism probably has special status in the Western World because it is used as a warning and example to the people living there of the sort of thing that can happen in their country.

For places where communism in the main big demon go to Eastern Europe, South America, Taiwan etc.
The evils of Imperial Japan, China and so on.

I would say Pol Pot has a reputation as bad as the Nazis, at least in the UK.

The holocaust is fairly unique because of it's scale and the dedicated and concentrated way they went about it. In very very crude terms in many of the Communist regimes the people were killed by hunger or other indirect means over many years, not about 6,000,000 gassed in a year and a half.

Also, people can see some logic, even if it is twisted, in many of the communist regimes, because they come from social inequality, idealism etc. big social problems in the countries they appear in.

Whereas Nazism just seems wholly negative, when crazy biggoted conservatives go totally ape with bloodletting, like the KKK made into a worldwide totalitarian movement, playing on racism and fear.

Also, I have heard that the Jewish lobby in powerful in the US, and the US has close ties with Israel, that might be part of the explanation for the museum.

Posted by: sid guttridge July 08, 2006 11:53 am
Hi Jeff,

Personally I am opposed to special elevation of the so-called "Holocaust". I have no objection to a public Genocide Day, or a public Genocide Memorial, or a public Genocide Museum, but I don't think that one particular genocide, however awful, should be the particular focus, especially in countries not directly involved in its prosecution. I think the focus on the so-called "Holocaust" is being misused to serve the current political requirements of Israel.

That said, there was something uniquely implacable about the attempted genocide of the Jews - a genocide in the true meaning of the word in that it was an attempt to annihilate an entire race by industrial means. There has been nothing like it. There was nothing the Jews could do to "Un-Jew" themselves to escape genocide. They couldn't recant. They couldn't convert. They couldn't re-educate. They couldn't collaborate.

Communism certainly killed an awful lot of people, but that is not necessarily the same as true genocide. Communism's killing, although more widespread (it did, after all, have much longer to kill people over a far wider area than Nazism) was less implacable. Under Communism it was often possible to "re-educate" oneself to accommodate to the system in a way that Jews could not under Nazism. This isn't much consolation to those who did die under Communism, but the fact remains that the Nazis' attempted genocide against the Jews was more implacable than anything attempted by Communism anywhere.

As I said before, we in the West are naturally going to focus more on Hitler than on Stalin or Mao because we fought a hot war against him. What is more, he corrupted a major Western country to carry out his genocide. It strikes closer to home.

But that still leaves open my question, "Where are all the books and authors who contend that Hitler was a unique evil?"

Cheers,

Sid.




Posted by: Zayets July 09, 2006 02:02 pm
Hear,hear.

Posted by: Jeff_S July 10, 2006 08:10 pm
QUOTE (sid guttridge @ Jul 8 2006, 06:53 AM)
Personally I am opposed to special elevation of the so-called "Holocaust". I have no objection to a public Genocide Day, or a public Genocide Memorial, or a public Genocide Museum, but I don't think that one particular genocide, however awful, should be the particular focus, especially in countries not directly involved in its prosecution. I think the focus on the so-called "Holocaust" is being misused to serve the current political requirements of Israel.


I agree 100%. Let's try to keep the focus on the victims, or at least on what we can learn from it (in the case of Nazi Germany, that a high level of culture and education is no sure defense against barbarism). It just seems to get mired in claims by those related to the victims against those related to the perpetrators.

QUOTE
That said, there was something uniquely implacable about the attempted genocide of the Jews - a genocide in the true meaning of the word in that it was an attempt to annihilate an entire race by industrial means.


I agree. In Stalin's repression, there was at least an attempt to claim that the terror was in response to some threat, or retribution for past misdeeds. Even if it was completely bizarre and paranoid, it wasn't presented as being purely because of who the victims were.

QUOTE
There was nothing the Jews could do to "Un-Jew" themselves to escape genocide. They couldn't recant. They couldn't convert. They couldn't re-educate. They couldn't collaborate.


Certainly the Jews could do nothing to "un-Jew" themselves. But neither could the victims of Stalin's ethnically-based repressions escape their persecution. Could a Pole in eastern Poland in 1939 "un-Pole" himself and escape the Gulag or exile? Or a Ukrainian, or Latvian, or Moldovan, or Crimean Tatar? Would the daughter of an "enemy of the people" suddenly not be the daughter of an enemy of the people? Stalin's repressions were at least as sweeping and arbitrary. Certainly with Stalin there was always the possiblity that the winds would shift, and today's enemy of the people be released. After 6 months of persecuting Jews, Hitler didn't suddenly decide that Jews were OK, and he would go after Hessians instead.

QUOTE
As I said before, we in the West are naturally going to focus more on Hitler than on Stalin or Mao because we fought a hot war against him.


First, Korea was a rather hot war for some of us in the West, and I would say we were fighting Mao there. But it wasn't conclusive the way that World War 2 was.

But I don't think that's all there is to it. I think that we like to keep Hitler and the Nazis pure, and say that the fight against Naziism was simply Good vs. Evil. With Communism that is harder to do. Many Western nations had quite substantial communist parties, but Nazi groups were never more than a fringe element and lacked the trans-national appeal of communism. And Marx has always been more palatable as an intellectual godfather than the Nazi's crazy racist rantings. What's not to like about the workers being released from the chains of capitalist wage-slavery?

QUOTE
What is more, he corrupted a major Western country to carry out his genocide. It strikes closer to home.


Very true. It's much harder to say "it could never happen here".

Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu July 11, 2006 08:13 am
QUOTE
I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying, I am DEFINITELY NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT THE USSR HAD SOME MORAL OBJECTION TO AGGRESSION, just that they never planned on aggression on the same scale as Germany.


Rgr on the first part - however I think comunist russia planned an agression on an even bigger scale - look at Asia, Cuba, Africa.. They tried to impose their regim by force allover the globe. We had the cold war for a reason.

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas July 11, 2006 08:56 am
I think I have changed my idea on the USSR's part in starting World War Two.

This debate prompted me to have a look at a couple of books I have to refresh my knowledge on the build up to WWII. I was surprised, for the following reasons:

i) In 1940 the USSR occupied Basarabia and Northern Bucovina as a result of the Nazi Soviet pact.

But...

At the same time Hungary took Northern Transylvania away from Romania as part of a settlement decided by the Germans, which dwarfs the scale of the territories the Russians took. This is discussed in Mark Axworthy's account 'Third Axis, Fourth Ally'.

ii) The attack on Finland. According to the book 'The Winter War' by William Trotter, which is sympathetic to the Finns, the Soviet attack began as a result of a misunderstanding between the USSR and the Finns.

According to this book the Soviet Union did not intend to occupy all of Finland, only small areas near the Karelian Isthmus to protect Leningrad from German attack.

iii) The Nazi Soviet pact apparently came about due to Nazi intitatives, and also after Stalin realised that he could not rely on the Western Allies to support him against Nazi Germany. The alliance, on the part of the USSR was apparently to buy time and forestall a German attack, not a plan to carve up Europe.

iv) Just before World War Two Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, USSR etc. were all invovled in negotiations to occupy disputed territory belonging to their neighbours. BUT...according to a recent biography of Hitler (by Ian Kershaw) only one European statesman was actively determined to start a huge war.

In Kershaw's biography there are pages and pages of info. on Hitler's aggressive intentions, from speeches, things he told his generals, along the lines of war and conquest would solve all Germany's economic problems etc. throughout the 30s.

It is also misleading to claim that the only reason Romania entered the war was to regain territory taken by the Soviets. More significant was impressing the Germans and combating Hungarian influence in order to get Northern Transylvania back.

I would change my ideas about who was responsible for WWII:
Roughly, the allies, the USSR, Hungary etc. contributed about 5% to the outbreak of war.

Germany about 95%.

Posted by: dragos July 11, 2006 09:04 am
QUOTE (saudadesdefrancesinhas @ Jul 11 2006, 11:56 AM)
iv) Just before World War Two Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, USSR etc. were all invovled in negotiations to occupy disputed territory belonging to their neighbours.

What do you mean by Romania involved in negociations to occupy territory just before WW2? What exactly is your source for this claim?

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas July 11, 2006 09:15 am
There is something in Mark Axworthy's book about some territory...I think I have made a mistake. I was thinking that Romania was wanting to occupy some territory that had belonged to Bulgaria, but it was possibly the otherway around when I think about it. Was it Romania that had the territory since 1913 and Bulgaria wanted it back?

Also, the Germans offered Romania some of somewhere else, but I don't think wanted it in the end. Was it Czechslovakian territory?

Posted by: Carol I July 11, 2006 09:39 am
QUOTE (saudadesdefrancesinhas @ Jul 11 2006, 10:15 AM)
There is something in Mark Axworthy's book about some territory...I think I have made a mistake. I was thinking that Romania was wanting to occupy some territory that had belonged to Bulgaria, but it was possibly the otherway around when I think about it. Was it Romania that had the territory since 1913 and Bulgaria wanted it back?

Yes, it was the Southern Dobruja region.

Posted by: dead-cat July 11, 2006 10:29 am
the Soviet Union actively supported hungarian and bulgarian territorial (re-)claims, despite the mutual agreement on "spheres of interest".
this happened right after the axis victory in the west and coincided with a shift of soviet foreign politics away from supporting the axis, with the aim of sending the UK a signal of support.
the Soviet Union was interested in a chaotic Romania which would have caused signifiant problems regarding the oil supply for the german army. which is why they supported bulgarian and hungarian claims.

Posted by: Dénes July 11, 2006 01:44 pm
QUOTE (saudadesdefrancesinhas @ Jul 11 2006, 03:15 PM)
Also, the Germans offered Romania some of somewhere else, but I don't think wanted it in the end. Was it Czechslovakian territory?

That was Southern Banat, part of Yugoslavia, in early 1941.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Dan Po July 11, 2006 03:23 pm
A very interesting book is "Icebreaker" by Victor Suvurov.

Posted by: Dan Po July 11, 2006 04:20 pm
QUOTE (saudadesdefrancesinhas @ Jul 8 2006, 12:55 PM)

You could try reading books about foreign policy in the 1930s, and which Nations had aggressive and expansionist plans that they were quite open about.

[...]

This is better only in some much as the USSR was not a deeply commited to as warlike and aggressive foreign policy as Germany.

The problem with Nazism, which makes it different to many other aggressive Nations in moral terms,  is that aggressive conquest on a world scale was at the heart of it's policy, was one of the main aspects of it's policy, that war and conquest is a good in itself.

[...]

so, you ignore the heart of communist/bolshevic/etc ideology: the final objective is a new order established by working class dictatorship. why those 24.000 tanks of Red Army in 1940 ? for motherland defence ? rolleyes.gif why 6 soviet airborne brigades (18.000 men) established by Stalin in 1938 ? etc, etc

just read the book already indicated.

Posted by: Dan Po July 11, 2006 04:32 pm
QUOTE (saudadesdefrancesinhas @ Jul 8 2006, 12:46 PM)

I didn't say it did. It just depends what you mean by 'Major' role.

Anyway, if you read what I posted...I thought in crude terms USSR might have played something like a 40% role, Germany 60% in the actual outbreak of war in 1939:


************USSR 40%*************

That is quite a major role.

How you reach at this proportions ? Can we know that magic procedure ?

Posted by: Dan Po July 11, 2006 04:41 pm
QUOTE (Dénes @ Jul 11 2006, 04:44 PM)
QUOTE (saudadesdefrancesinhas @ Jul 11 2006, 03:15 PM)
Also, the Germans offered Romania some of somewhere else, but I don't think wanted it in the end. Was it Czechslovakian territory?

That was Southern Banat, part of Yugoslavia, in early 1941.

Gen. Dénes

Antonescu was very clear: he said that he will never accepted any compensations for the Northern Transylvania, neither southern Banat or across the Dniester.

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas July 11, 2006 09:36 pm
QUOTE (Dan Po @ Jul 11 2006, 04:20 PM)
[

[...] [/QUOTE]
so, you ignore the heart of communist/bolshevic/etc ideology: the final objective is a new order established by working class dictatorship. why those 24.000 tanks of Red Army in 1940 ? for motherland defence ? rolleyes.gif why 6 soviet airborne brigades (18.000 men) established by Stalin in 1938 ? etc, etc

just read the book already indicated.

No, it is just mentioned in other posts I made.

I thought that Stalin had given up, or at least drawn back on the World Wide Revolution thing by the 30s, to concentrate on 'building socialism' in the USSR. But I am not sure about this, I will have to find some good books on Soviet foreign policy in the 30s to know better.

I think the Red Army had 20,000 tanks on inventory in 1940 because it had built that many since 1920. I think only a fraction of that number were actually operational.

Following the logic of using such facts as numbers of tanks available as proof of offensive intentions, if Stalin had big offensive intentions to attack Eastern and Western Europe why did he have all the Generals who knew anything about using tanks offensively executed 1937-38?

Did France also not have offensive intentions because it built a lot of tanks in the late 30s?

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas July 11, 2006 09:40 pm
QUOTE (Dan Po @ Jul 11 2006, 04:32 PM)
QUOTE (saudadesdefrancesinhas @ Jul 8 2006, 12:46 PM)

I didn't say it did. It just depends what you mean by 'Major' role.

Anyway, if you read what I posted...I thought in crude terms USSR might have played something like a 40% role, Germany 60% in the actual outbreak of war in 1939:


                        ************USSR 40%*************

That is quite a major role.

How you reach at this proportions ? Can we know that magic procedure ?

The answer to that is no, I am not going to tell you the procedure for coming up with these figures, but I will say that it invovles immense amounts of intricate and detailed calculation of variable factors about foreign policy stuff in the 1930s which are so intricate even I can't really understand them.

That's the magic.

Posted by: Dan Po July 12, 2006 07:11 am
Well, I prefer the science instead of the magic. And Im not sure about the scientifical value of your "proportions". No offence ! smile.gif

We have enough arguments to consider that the 22 june 1941 was a "preventive atack". The Red Army was massed at the western borders of Soviet Union. The soviet offensive against the wester Europe was a matter of time.

Posted by: Imperialist July 12, 2006 08:32 am
The western powers had a huge contribution to the start of WW2 because of what they signed in Munich 1938. That signing not only resulted in the collapse of the loose eastern european ententes and agreements, but also nullified the soviet efforts to enter into an alliance with France and those eastern buffer states.
German policy ranks 1st in the contribution, followed by western powers indecision and appeasement, which ranks 2nd, and by the eastern european states' territorial squabbles which rank 3rd.
Whoever wants to place Soviet Union in the top, should find some proof that Hitler would have hesitated or even stopped his war on Poland if the 23rd August Pact with the USSR wouldnt have been signed.

Posted by: Imperialist July 12, 2006 08:37 am
QUOTE (Dan Po @ Jul 12 2006, 07:11 AM)
The Red Army was massed at the western borders of Soviet Union. The soviet offensive against the wester Europe was a matter of time.

Where would you have expected it to mass? In Siberia, Caucasus, on the border of China?
Historically Russia has always focused on Europe. Most of its wars were in Europe, most of its competitors and opponents were in Europe. Russia's center of gravity was closer to Europe than to Japan, so naturally the bulk of its armies would be massed here, not in the far east.

Posted by: dead-cat July 12, 2006 08:44 am
soviet railcars were also build so that they could be quickly modiefied to run on normal gauge.
this was the case since the mid 30ies, while the OKW decided only in july 1941, well after Barbarossa began, that the entire soviet rail infrastructure should be modified to normal gauge, after it became clear that the quantity of captured rolling stock was grossly insufficient.

Posted by: Imperialist July 12, 2006 08:57 am
QUOTE (dead-cat @ Jul 12 2006, 08:44 AM)
soviet railcars were also build so that they could be quickly modiefied to run on normal gauge.
this was the case since the mid 30ies, while the OKW decided only in july 1941, well after Barbarossa began, that the entire soviet rail infrastructure should be modified to normal gauge, after it became clear that the quantity of captured rolling stock was grossly insufficient.

Nothing strange, since in the mid 30s the SU signed a treaty of mutual assistance with France. Assitance to Czechoslovakia was also envisioned in case of German attack.

Posted by: dead-cat July 12, 2006 09:29 am
i didn't say it is strange.
the soviet union, in harmony with the CPSU doctrine of the 30ies, did not see an agression as "bad". if a war is "just" or not is decided only by the aim of that war, i.e. a war is "just" if it serves the liberation of the proletarian class from the imperialist subjugations. from there, the conclusion was, that every war waged by the soviet union has a "just" cause because it serves the liberation of the "working class".
with that background offensive actions against western capitalist states, were within the party doctrine and thus preparations were conducted, the railcar "strategy" being one of them.

Posted by: Imperialist July 12, 2006 09:54 am
The SU's foreign policy or military policy was not dominated by ideology. If it were so, the SU would have never signed any pact or treaty with France, Poland, Czechoslovakia and eventually nazi Germany.

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas July 12, 2006 09:55 am
QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jul 12 2006, 08:32 AM)
The western powers had a huge contribution to the start of WW2 because of what they signed in Munich 1938. That signing not only resulted in the collapse of the loose eastern european ententes and agreements, but also nullified the soviet efforts to enter into an alliance with France and those eastern buffer states.
German policy ranks 1st in the contribution, followed by western powers indecision and appeasement, which ranks 2nd, and by the eastern european states' territorial squabbles which rank 3rd.
Whoever wants to place Soviet Union in the top, should find some proof that Hitler would have hesitated or even stopped his war on Poland if the 23rd August Pact with the USSR wouldnt have been signed.

I think that this obscures where all the aggression was coming from!

The USSR, the Western Allies, even Hungary, Bulgaria etc. all played a role in ALLOWING World War Two to start, but, they were not the driving force behind it at all.

It would never have come about if the Third Reich was not absolutely commited to waging it.

You can only blame the allies for starting World War Two by saying that they failed in their efforts to restrict German aggression. The main blame aught to lie with the Germans, for having the aggressive aims in the first place.

They weren't obliged or forced to have such aims.

Posted by: dead-cat July 12, 2006 10:07 am
QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jul 12 2006, 11:54 AM)
The SU's foreign policy or military policy was not dominated by ideology. If it were so, the SU would have never signed any pact or treaty with France, Poland, Czechoslovakia and eventually nazi Germany.

it is not that simple as saying "the soviet union was communist so, they wouldn't ally themselves with capitalists". yes they would because they had a long term strategy which meant surviving long enough until they are strong enough for the world revolution (at least in europe).

since the end of the civil war, the soviet union saw her existence threatened all the time, well knowing that it is impossible to resist a determined combined attack of an alliance of imperialistic nations. that threat dominated soviet strategic thinking throughout the 20ies and 30ies.
it is the main reason for the agressive industrialization program which practically transformed peasents into slaves.
every alliance which bought the soviet union time and security was worth considering and explains why they supported someone with such a an opposed ideology like nazi germany.
having hitler attack france&england was the bestin thing stalin could hope since it would weaken all three. having hitler win in 6 weeks was allmost the worst thing stalin actually hoped for because now, hitler was stronger than ever. and exactly at that point the soviet union started to move away from nazi germany and support the allies (particulary england).

Posted by: Imperialist July 12, 2006 10:09 am
QUOTE (saudadesdefrancesinhas @ Jul 12 2006, 09:55 AM)
You can only blame the allies for starting World War Two by saying that they failed in their efforts to restrict German aggression. The main blame aught to lie with the Germans, for having the aggressive aims in the first place.

Yes, this is exactly what I said, or if it wasnt clear enough, meant to say. I did point out Germany was the no.1 guilty party. But the western powers were next because they appeased Germany, and this weakened the eastern countries, and gave birth to conspiracy theories in the SU which feared a common goal between the western powers and the "middle power" nazi Germany.

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas July 12, 2006 10:12 am
QUOTE (Dan Po @ Jul 12 2006, 07:11 AM)
Well, I prefer the science instead of the magic. And Im not sure about the scientifical value of your "proportions". No offence ! smile.gif

We have enough arguments to consider that the 22 june 1941 was a "preventive atack". The Red Army was massed at the western borders of Soviet Union. The soviet offensive against the wester Europe was a matter of time.

It is true that the scientific value of my arguments is limited. smile.gif

There is almost no evidence that I have come across at least that Barbarossa was a preemptive attack at all, if you have evidence please feel free to quote it, and which sources you are deriving it from.

I have noticed that people are posting fairly general points about things like Soviet Foreign Policy, Ethics etc. in much more general terms, as evidence for the USSRs responsibility in starting the Second World War. The same thing could be said about ideas about the railway system, armaments build up etc.

Instead of basing ideas about Soviet involvement on such vague facts, it is possibly to find out how the Russian, German etc. leaders were actually seeing the situation at the time. What goals and aims did they have through the thirties, how did they orientate their foreign policy etc.

This can be done via the large quantity of good, well researched books on these subjects, when they are based on extensive use of contemporary material. From this material, the Nazi leadership admit quite freely and frequently that they are aiming at unprovoked aggressive conquest, the only moral justification for such actions being that afterwards when they have been successful no one will bother about how they were successful. Indeed, Nazism rejected all conventional morality in favour of a law of the jungle mentality quite specifically.

I have to find out more about Soviet Policy in the 30s, but nothing I have come across in relation to any other European country and it's diplomacy has indicated such aggressive and amoral intentions as the Nazis were happy to be explicit about.

And they fully implemented them, and took the consequences.

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas July 12, 2006 10:17 am
QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jul 12 2006, 10:09 AM)
QUOTE (saudadesdefrancesinhas @ Jul 12 2006, 09:55 AM)
You can only blame the allies for starting World War Two by saying that they failed in their efforts to restrict German aggression. The main blame aught to lie with the Germans, for having the aggressive aims in the first place.

Yes, this is exactly what I said, or if it wasnt clear enough, meant to say. I did point out Germany was the no.1 guilty party. But the western powers were next because they appeased Germany, and this weakened the eastern countries, and gave birth to conspiracy theories in the SU which feared a common goal between the western powers and the "middle power" nazi Germany.

Hi Imperialist,

I think this is probably true, but I think the guilt of the Western powers, and the USSR, and any other European country is very very small in comparaison to the German guilt.

The Western powers, France and UK, were quite eager to fight the USSR I think, during the war against Finland they quite seriously discussed declaring war on the USSR and sending divisions to fight with the Finns, even though war with Germany had already started.

Posted by: Victor July 12, 2006 10:56 am
QUOTE (Dan Po @ Jul 12 2006, 09:11 AM)
We have enough arguments to consider that the 22 june 1941 was a "preventive atack". The Red Army was massed at the western borders of Soviet Union. The soviet offensive against the wester Europe was a matter of time.

How much time? If you mean a couple of years, yes, but if you are talking about days/weeks, than definately no.

Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu July 12, 2006 10:56 am
40% (your own figure for USSR contribution) I would not say it is very very small, au contraire: very very big smile.gif a major one even.

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas July 12, 2006 03:42 pm
I know that's why I changed my assessment, it must have got lost in the flurry of posts.

Here's the new assessment:

Something like 5% everyone but Germany.

95% Germany

Germany was also mainly responsible for the other one I think too.

Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu July 12, 2006 03:45 pm
lol smile.gif

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas July 13, 2006 09:42 am
Come on, you know they did. smile.gif

Posted by: Dan Po July 13, 2006 01:51 pm
QUOTE (Victor @ Jul 12 2006, 01:56 PM)
QUOTE (Dan Po @ Jul 12 2006, 09:11 AM)
We have enough arguments to consider that the 22 june 1941 was a "preventive atack". The Red Army was massed at the western borders of Soviet Union. The soviet offensive against the wester Europe was a matter of time.

How much time? If you mean a couple of years, yes, but if you are talking about days/weeks, than definately no.

Its hard to say precisely but I think it was a matter of weeks or months. Son I will come back with some arguments.

* I will play as the advocate of Suvurov s Theory. Im not 100% convinced but I think that we need to considere it.

Posted by: mabadesc July 13, 2006 02:30 pm
QUOTE
QUOTE (Dan Po @ Jul 12 2006, 07:11 AM)
The Red Army was massed at the western borders of Soviet Union. The soviet offensive against the wester Europe was a matter of time. 


Where would you have expected it to mass? In Siberia, Caucasus, on the border of China?
Historically Russia has always focused on Europe. Most of its wars were in Europe, most of its competitors and opponents were in Europe. Russia's center of gravity was closer to Europe than to Japan, so naturally the bulk of its armies would be massed here, not in the far east.


If the Soviet Union was merely trying to defend against a possible invasion, then its forces would not have been massed on the Western Border, but rather echeloned in depth. It's one of the basic defensive principles - you don't place all your armies on the border so that the enemy can surround and destroy them (which happened to a large degree during the first days of the war).

If, however, the SU was preparing an offensive, then yes, it would have been logical to have its troops massed close to the border, ready for a jump-off move.

According to Dan Po, who follows Suvorov's argument, a Soviet offensive was imminent in June 1941, and based on the position of Soviet troops it's difficult to argue the contrary.

What is impossible to predict is how soon that offensive would have taken place. It was definitely not a question of years. But was it a few weeks, or a few months, or maybe even close to a year? Difficult to say.

P.S. We should also not forget that Stalin's rhetoric within party meetings and conferences abruptly changed in 1941 from a proponent of peace to advocating all means necessary, including war, to spread communism to the world (see Merridale, Suvorov, Montefiore).

Posted by: dead-cat July 13, 2006 02:41 pm
QUOTE

According to Dan Po, who follows Suvorov's argument, a Soviet offensive was imminent in June 1941, and based on the position of Soviet troops it's difficult to argue the contrary.

IIRC according to Suvorov an attack was planned for fall '41, as soviet deployment was behind schedule.

Posted by: Imperialist July 13, 2006 02:43 pm
There is already a thread dedicated to Suvorov's theory:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=2137

Posted by: Jeff_S July 13, 2006 05:01 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jul 12 2006, 05:09 AM)
Yes, this is exactly what I said, or if it wasnt clear enough, meant to say. I did point out Germany was the no.1 guilty party. But the western powers were next because they appeased Germany, and this weakened the eastern countries, and gave birth to conspiracy theories in the SU which feared a common goal between the western powers and the "middle power" nazi Germany.

I find this line of reasoning quite bizarre Imperialist. Certainly, it is not controversial that Western appeasement encouraged Hitler. We will never known what would have happened if Britain and France had stood up to Hitler over the Rhineland, or the Austrain Anschluss or Sudetenland. But to say that they are guilty in some moral sense goes too far, in my opinion.

Let's say there is a thief loose in my city. He robs my house, then goes on to rob 10 more houses. Using this logic the thief is most guilty, but I am also guilty because I did not put bars on my windows and better locks on my door, and this encouraged the thief. Maybe I was foolish, but I'm not responsible to the other victims for the thief's actions. Same with Britain and France -- it's easy in hind-sight to say that they were foolish or cowardly. But that doesn't make them guilty of starting the war. Avoiding war was the highest priority (too high, most would say).

To the extant that the western Allies are morally responsible for Hitler, I would say it lies in the use of the Versailles treaty to punish Germany well beyond her actual level of guilt (for starting World War I).

Posted by: Imperialist July 13, 2006 05:45 pm
QUOTE (Jeff_S @ Jul 13 2006, 05:01 PM)
Let's say there is a thief loose in my city. He robs my house, then goes on to rob 10 more houses. Using this logic the thief is most guilty, but I am also guilty because I did not put bars on my windows and better locks on my door, and this encouraged the thief. Maybe I was foolish, but I'm not responsible to the other victims for the thief's actions.

If you sign a pact with the thief saying you will allow him to take a neighbours' property if he doesnt start looting your property or start a general fire in the neighbourhood over this issue then you share moral responsibility for his subsequent actions. Especialy if you were supposed to guarantee law and order in that neighbourhood AND you had a pact guaranteeing your neighbours property rights.

Posted by: dead-cat July 14, 2006 08:05 am
QUOTE

Let's say there is a thief loose in my city. He robs my house, then goes on to rob 10 more houses. Using this logic the thief is most guilty, but I am also guilty because I did not put bars on my windows and better locks on my door, and this encouraged the thief.

if you ask your insurance, you'll find that they see it exactly that way, especially if you have an insurance against break-ins. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Dan Po July 14, 2006 12:42 pm
very interesting: (by courtesy of Gen. Denes)

[link removed by admin]

Posted by: Imperialist July 14, 2006 01:25 pm
QUOTE (Dan Po @ Jul 14 2006, 12:42 PM)
very interesting: (by courtesy of Gen. Denes)

[link removed by admin]

This is a revisionist source.

Posted by: Jeff_S July 14, 2006 04:25 pm
QUOTE (dead-cat @ Jul 14 2006, 03:05 AM)
if you ask your insurance, you'll find that they see it exactly that way, especially if you have an insurance against break-ins. biggrin.gif

Not exactly, at least not from my experience.

It is true I could easily be responsible to my insurance company for failing to take basic steps to protect my property, if I left the door unlocked for example. But I'm not responsible for my neighbor's houses being robbed.

To continue the analogy, Britain and France failed their own citizens, when they did not stop Nazi aggression when it was easier to do so. They were weak, and foolish, and indecisive. But at least in my eyes, that doesn't make them guilty (or partially guilty) for World War 2.

The World War I allies had every opportunity to put in place an effective collective security system following the war. They chose to use Versailles as a chance to punish Germany, without regard for the future, and without carefully considering what sort of regime this might bring to power.

Posted by: Jeff_S July 14, 2006 04:34 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jul 13 2006, 12:45 PM)
If you sign a pact with the thief saying you will allow him to take a neighbours' property if he doesnt start looting your property or start a general fire in the neighbourhood over this issue then you share moral responsibility for his subsequent actions. Especialy if you were supposed to guarantee law and order in that neighbourhood AND you had a pact guaranteeing your neighbours property rights.

I see your point, especially when it is a matter of honoring defensive alliances with Eastern European countries. I still think it's not for Country A to tell Country B it can take part of Country C's territory... it's not Country A's to give away.

I'm also tempted to go around to the neighbors tonight and ask for the right to start a general fire. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Dénes July 14, 2006 05:29 pm
QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jul 14 2006, 07:25 PM)
QUOTE (Dan Po @ Jul 14 2006, 12:42 PM)
very interesting: (by courtesy of Gen. Denes)

[link removed by admin]

This is a revisionist source.

Imperialist, it doesn't matter how the site is, or how you perceive it.
What does matter is what that particular article contains.
Debate the article, not the wrapping.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: sid guttridge July 14, 2006 05:51 pm
Hi Denes,

Good point. As we say in a similar football analogy, "play the ball, not the man".

That said, this IS a revisionist site that seems on a cursory reading to explain German atrocities by reference to Soviet atrocities, but blames Soviet atrocities on the Soviets' own exaggeration of German atrocities.

The fact remains that, whatever Stalin's intentions - and they weren't likely to be very pleasant - Hitler was the one who actually opened the war. What is more, he did so in accordance with long announced intentions to find lebensraum in the East that did not presuppose a Communist enemy. They presupposed an inferior Slavic population that was to be displaced regardless of its politics. Look what happened to the decidedly non-Communist Poles. Hitler was not reacting to Stalin. He was being proactive.

However unpleasant Stalin was - and he was extremely unpleasant - we cannot blame him for crimes he never got the chance to commit.

Cheers,

Sid.

Posted by: Imperialist July 17, 2006 09:26 am
QUOTE (Dénes @ July 14, 2006 05:29 pm)
Imperialist, it doesn't matter how the site is, or how you perceive it.
What does matter is what that particular article contains.
Debate the article, not the wrapping.

Gen. Dénes

Of course it matters. I thought articles from conspiracy sites were too low for the debate level on this forum, or so I was told. This IHR site is such a site. Check it's home page. Zionists this, zionists that, holocaust denial etc.

Posted by: Victor July 18, 2006 06:14 am
Imperialist is right. I have removed the link.

Posted by: Dénes July 18, 2006 03:02 pm
I never bothered to check the opening web page, or other articles of that site, because they are irrelevant.

As I said, in my opinion, a particular article is relevant not other, unrelated details. This is valid for books too, where various studies of several authors - some sound, some questionable - are published. Or, Communist-era history books, where the opening few chapters are ideologically corrupt; nevertheless, one could still find interesting details in other chapters. Am I right?

I found the quoted study interesting, and thought it is worth calling the attention upon it.

If the Admin. decided to remove the link, it's his prerogative. However, I found the move gratuitous.

Gen. Dénes

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)