1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageFAIL. You should check a history book for the date of the Russo-Finnish War; suffice to say, it wasn't before September 1, 1939.
Why? First, because under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, those countries fell under the Soviet sphere of influence. (Finland was the first country to be invaded, even before Germany invaded Poland.) Second, because Stalin didn't trust Hitler and needed a buffer zone against potential German aggression.
The immediate military consequence of the pact w ...[text shortened]... le of swallowing up smaller countries when conditions suited it or when it deemed it necessary.
Yes. Stalin wanted and got a buffer zone. Given the subsequent and prior history of the Baltic States, it's likely they would have been Nazi allies against the USSR when the inevitable invasion occurred. Sure, Stalin was willing to take over smaller countries when he deemed it necessary for the survival of the his nation; perhaps you could name a leader who wouldn't. None of that supports the assertion that Stalin's foreign policy was "expansionist"; in fact, the USSR policy before Munich relied on international collective security. When it became obvious the West wasn't interested in confronting fascism (as the Soviets did in Spain and Manchuria), policy modifications were made.
It's been covered in other threads, but whether there was a German-Soviet Pact or not, Hitler was going to invade Poland in 1939. Given the refusal of the Poles to even consider allowing Soviet troops to enter their territory to help defend that nation, that war could have only one conclusion. Stalin was wise to cut a deal that advanced his defensive zone hundreds of kilometers no matter how shocking that is to the conscience of armchair historians now esp. ones who ignore the Western perfidy and stupidity of Munich.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're right, Finland was invaded in November 1939. (Does it make you feel big to write FAIL like that? Just wondering. It's quite childish in an old man).
FAIL. You should check a history book for the date of the Russo-Finnish War; suffice to say, it wasn't before September 1, 1939.
Yes. Stalin wanted and got a buffer zone. Given the subsequent and prior history of the Baltic States, it's likely they would have been Nazi allies against the USSR when the inevitable invasion occurred. Sure, S ...[text shortened]... rmchair historians now esp. ones who ignore the Western perfidy and stupidity of Munich.
You use the subsequent history of the Baltic states to justify the Soviet invasion? That's very -- special. (I'm unaware of the Baltic states' leaning towards Germany before they were invaded. I know Lithuania had territorial disputes with Germany. I know Estonia and Latvia had to fight German and Russian forces to become independent in 1918 and 1919 respectively.)
Stalin's actions are perfectly comprehensible in terms of realpolitik. No moral sugar-coating is required.
It's only natural for an imperial power to want to regain territories it once controlled -- and to gain more if it can, as the USSR certainly did after WW2.
In any case, I don't think Stalin's moral iniquity rests on the decisions he made to defend his country but on quite other grounds irrelevant to this discussion.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageSorry, I hurt your feelings. Perhaps you should do a little bit of homework before presenting a "fact" presumably important to your analysis which is ludicrously wrong.
You're right, Finland was invaded in November 1939. (Does it make you feel big to write FAIL like that? Just wondering. It's quite childish in an old man).
You use the subsequent history of the Baltic states to justify the Soviet invasion? That's very -- special. (I'm unaware of the Baltic states' leaning towards Germany before they were inv ...[text shortened]... he made to defend his country but on quite other grounds irrelevant to this discussion.
All three Baltic States had governments that were authoritarian, and nationalist in the late 1930's with economies based somewhat on the Fascist model of Italy. They were all actively hostile to the USSR and had outlawed the Communist and other leftist parties. It's true that Lithuania's relations with the Nazis wasn't great after the seizure of Memel in 1939. All three became fertile recruiting ground for the SS after the Nazi invasion; Nazi racial doctrine considered the Germanic residents of these nations as part of the favored Aryans - Rosenberg, one of the main Nazi "racial theorists" was an Estonian (he was convicted and hanged at Nuremberg).
Given these facts, I think it's reasonable to suppose they would have been likely to at least acquiesce to German troops being moved over their soil to attack the Soviets. Certainly the Soviet occupation of these countries greatly helped the defense of the USSR in 1941 by forcing the lines considerably to the West.
Stalin's "morality" is irrelevant to this discussion as you correctly point out.
Originally posted by no1marauderso those country were only invaded out of necessity. if the big hitler wouldn't have been a threat, little joe would have been all cuddly and nice.
Sorry, I hurt your feelings. Perhaps you should do a little bit of homework before presenting a "fact" presumably important to your analysis which is ludicrously wrong.
All three Baltic States had governments that were authoritarian, and nationalist in the late 1930's with economies based somewhat on the Fascist model of Italy. They were a ...[text shortened]... Stalin's "morality" is irrelevant to this discussion as you correctly point out.
yes, ludicrous can be applied to this thinking as well.
Originally posted by ZahlanziStalin could have invaded them any time in the 1930's and no one could have done much about it. For some reason, the "expansionist" USSR didn't until after Munich had established Nazi Germany as a serious threat to the Soviets. Wonder why Joe waited so long.
so those country were only invaded out of necessity. if the big hitler wouldn't have been a threat, little joe would have been all cuddly and nice.
yes, ludicrous can be applied to this thinking as well.
Your simple minded propaganda really doesn't have a good answer to that, does it?
Originally posted by no1marauderof course "my propaganda" has a good answer: he waited for events to play out. Stalin, unlike Hitler, was just an evil bastard, not crazy as well. so when Hitler was viewed as the main threat to civilization and not the Bolsheviks, he could simply move in and secure himself a piece of the pie: in order to battle the evil tyrant of course.
Stalin could have invaded them any time in the 1930's and no one could have done much about it. For some reason, the "expansionist" USSR didn't until after Munich had established Nazi Germany as a serious threat to the Soviets. Wonder why Joe waited so long.
Your simple minded propaganda really doesn't have a good answer to that, does it?
germany was defeated after the war. no more threat. i wonder why your fluffy cuddly teddy bears didn't retreated from the occupied countries. i wonder why they imposed communist regimes and why they took their tanks through budapest if they weren't expansionists. hmm i cant wait to see what your complex minded propaganda has to say about that.
Originally posted by ZahlanziHow many of the Soviet people died in WWII?
of course "my propaganda" has a good answer: he waited for events to play out. Stalin, unlike Hitler, was just an evil bastard, not crazy as well. so when Hitler was viewed as the main threat to civilization and not the Bolsheviks, he could simply move in and secure himself a piece of the pie: in order to battle the evil tyrant of course.
germany was d ...[text shortened]... nsionists. hmm i cant wait to see what your complex minded propaganda has to say about that.
What side was Hungary on in WWII?
After the war, the Soviets weren't inclined to allow hostile states on their borders. I wonder why.
Originally posted by no1marauderoh yeah, romania and poland and hungary were huge threats. mega huge. i have proof that if the romanians hadn't had a communist regime shoved down their throats, they would have formed an alliance with the baltic states and invaded the USSR. in fact, the romanians were building an atomic bomb, that is where the ussr got the plans for their nuke.
How many of the Soviet people died in WWII?
What side was Hungary on in WWII?
After the war, the Soviets weren't inclined to allow hostile states on their borders. I wonder why.
the eastern block was nothing more than buffers to protect against their former allies, to again play a waiting game, markets for their products, pawns to push around. poor ussr, the way you portray them you would think they were valiant protectors of all that is righteous and fluffy.
"How many of the Soviet people died in WWII?"
killed by the nazis or by the soviets?
Originally posted by ZahlanziRoumania and Hungary, in concert with the Nazis, invaded the USSR in 1941. Considering the amount of destruction and carnage caused by that, your country got off lightly.
oh yeah, romania and poland and hungary were huge threats. mega huge. i have proof that if the romanians hadn't had a communist regime shoved down their throats, they would have formed an alliance with the baltic states and invaded the USSR. in fact, the romanians were building an atomic bomb, that is where the ussr got the plans for their nuke.
the ea ...[text shortened]... fy.
"How many of the Soviet people died in WWII?"
killed by the nazis or by the soviets?
The Soviets played in the real world. But their policy was not "expansionist" as you claim.
Originally posted by no1marauderthe russians invaded romania and stole a chunk of our land. we were merely doing what you claim the soviets done, moved against a threat. the problem is, the russians wanted land back that wasn't theirs, we wanted land back that was ours. you might want to check your history, you kind of suk at it unless it is something that makes your precious soviets look like cuddly bears. when the soviets invade countries, they are simply wanting buffer zones to which they are entitled, when the nazis and the romanians invade, they are wreaking havoc and carnage.
Roumania and Hungary, in concert with the Nazis, invaded the USSR in 1941. Considering the amount of destruction and carnage caused by that, your country got off lightly.
The Soviets played in the real world. But their policy was not "expansionist" as you claim.
and yes, romania was huge help, we went so far as odessa and were mainly cannon fodder. oh the destruction and carnage we wrought.
Originally posted by FMFcould you please post a link or some hard evidence of "hairy chested americans insulting each other all the time in public life",using the"hitler card up the sleeve" ploy ?
It's a pretty cliched "factoid"... if it weren't for Neville Chamberlain and his piece of paper in 1938, 55,000,000 lives could have been saved!
Hardly anybody in Europe says this or thinks it. But for some reason people in American public life use it all the time it to try to insult one another in a kind of hairy-chested, ahistorical, Hitler Card Up The Slee ...[text shortened]... Neville-Chamberlain-could-have-done and how exactly do you think it might have panned out?
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe build up to the Iraq war. The "Neville Chamberlain could've prevented WW2" crowd have numerous blogs on the net. This web site. This Thread. I'll settle for that as my evidence: read this thread.
could you please post a link or some hard evidence of "hairy chested americans insulting each other all the time in public life",using the"hitler card up the sleeve" ploy ?
Originally posted by FMFno that wont suffice. you specifically said hairy chested americans say this all the time in public life. you must have access to a old magnum p.i. episode that you r sitting on that you are afraid to share w/ us for some reason.if you r going to make these claims you should show examples
The build up to the Iraq war. The "Neville Chamberlain could've prevented WW2" crowd have numerous blogs on the net. This web site. This Thread. I'll settle for that as my evidence: read this thread.
Originally posted by utherpendragonI'm not entirely sure he was being absolutely literal, you know...
no that wont suffice. you specifically said hairy chested americans say this all the time in public life. you must have access to a old magnum p.i. episode that you r sitting on that you are afraid to share w/ us for some reason.if you r going to make these claims you should show examples
Neville Chamberlain may not have been able to "prevent" WWII, but he could have made it a lot easier to win. In 1936, when the Nazis showed their first signs of aggression in re-militarizing the Rhineland and making overtures towards Austria that eventually resulted in the Anschluss, defeating Hitler would have been a cakewalk. In 1938, it may not have been a cakewalk, but it would have been a heck of a lot easier than it turned out to be, in the event.
It's also true that Chamberlain's turnabout and tough stance in 1939 after Hitler occupied the rest of Czecheslovakia probably saved England, as it's doubtful that they could have held out against Germany had they allowed Poland to capitulate and waited until 1941, when Hitler probably would have preferred to start the war against the West.
The comparison of Hitler circa 1938 to Saddam Hussein circa 2003 is not a great one, I'll grant you. Hussein was much less dangerous and much less likely to be a long term threat than Hitler was. He also, for all his butchery and lunacy, was probably less malicious than Hitler.
Still, the comparison is not totally irrelevant and the message that appeasement doesn't always work has application. The tricky part is knowing how to apply that lesson.