German and Soviet contribution to the starting of WW2

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.

Then I understood wrong

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

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on July 06, 2006 02:06 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

This post has been edited by Dénes on July 06, 2006 02:26 pm

Denes - Great post! Accurately describes today's mainstream, PC view.

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.

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.

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.

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

Then I understood wrong

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

This post has been edited by D13-th_Mytzu on July 07, 2006 10:25 am

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.