German and Soviet contribution to the starting of WW2

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.

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

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..

This post has been edited by D13-th_Mytzu on June 27, 2006 08:24 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.

This post has been edited by D13-th_Mytzu on June 27, 2006 08:55 am

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.

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.

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.

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.

This post has been edited by D13-th_Mytzu on June 27, 2006 11:28 am

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.

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.

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'.

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 ?

This post has been edited by D13-th_Mytzu on July 03, 2006 12:07 pm

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.