German and Soviet contribution to the starting of WW2

very interesting: (by courtesy of Gen. Denes)

[link removed by admin]

This is a revisionist source.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Imperialist is right. I have removed the link.

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