German and Soviet contribution to the starting of WW2

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.

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

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.

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.

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

40% (your own figure for USSR contribution) I would not say it is very very small, au contraire: very very big a major one even.

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.

lol

Come on, you know they did.

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.

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).

This post has been edited by mabadesc on July 13, 2006 02:34 pm

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

There is already a thread dedicated to Suvorov's theory:

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

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).

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.

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