The Great Patriotic War: 1939-1943

The 1939 ussr part of poland and finland if weak was to give the Poland And Finland as peace of pact to attack knew Britain and France were too far to Act. The miracle of winter war took place, the Red Army broke the peace negotion and 3 months we held out position.

 

Only the Ussr attacked but broke the non-aggression pact.

 

I think the point was, as others have alluded to, the German Soviet pack enabled the German attack on Poland. Absent that pack the Germans could have found themselves facing a two front war where both sides were as or more ready for it than the Germans were. Tamino brought up a German Finnish pact a few posts ago but it should be noted that that pact wasn't in any way essential to the start of the war or the German attack on the Soviets.

 

Troll!

Spot on LWD.

Your conclusions are well founded with facts and based on valid reasoning.

The trouble is that Poles did exactly the same thing together with Nazis, a year before, just on that occasion Czechoslovakia was dismembered. Poles took their share of the prey.

According to that line of reasoning: Poles have enabled the World War 2. Their mentors, the Britons, have won the war and wrote the official history which exonerates and absolves Poles from any Sin. Is that fair? Should history be written the to please just own prejudices?

 

Really? The Poles agreed ahead of time to take over part of Czechoslovakia? Not from what I can see. Indeed it looks like Hitler forwarded the claims of Poland and Hungary for his own purposes. It was also pretty clear by the time that Poland invaded that if they didn't Hitler would end up with the portion they took. So no not a very comparable analogy. Then there's the British and French guarantees in regards to Poland vs them abandoning Czechoslovakia. Indeed you can make a case that by strengthening themselves the Poles lessened the chance of war. Not enough to make a difference perhaps but they didn't know that at the time.

 

See! You have to employ "the British and French guarantees in regards to Poland" to make your explanation hold water. Official history is incoherent or made artifitialy coherent by introducing unsupported assumptions, ideology, false philantropy, sometimes outright lies. That's the problem.

 

I Allways wonder if the volunteerFrench and British forces had fought the USSR forces in the Finnish line and the Allied Air Forces had bombed with planes the Baku oil fields what the end result had been. In 1940 the Blitzkrieg was fuelled with Soviet oil. What is there to understand on whole side the USSR was?

 

What makes you Smile if the Allied tried to protect Poland? Notting unless you had guns ready.

 

What was the 1939 government Molotov only informed he would negotiate with theFinnish about peace. Vanished in Siberia? At least we never heard of them after early 1940. He had to negotiate with the official Finnish government. Just another lie that died as Stalin from Grusia had to let go.

 

Don't worry I have a small question for you: in winter war 1 million Red Army soldiers were Mia, Kia or Pow. You can try to % them to groups I guess. Finland had 600 000 soldiers.

 

I most emphatically did not. Indeed it was a bit of an after thought at least as far as the detestability of the act goes. The guarantees did almost guarantee that this act of agression would initiate war between Germany and the Western allies.

Not really. Soviet official history is quite coherent although it was subject to change over time. The coherency was due to them believing the interest of the state superseded such things as the truth. Western official histories are bit more varied. Indeed they are often absent. When they are present from my experience they tend to be relatively accurate.

 

Why should "the British and French guarantees in regards to Poland" matter, for example?
You have a flawed original assumption that the Germans and Soviets were wrong and the British were right. In reality they were different sides of the same hypocrisy. Assumption of guilt or innocence before investigation always leads into the desired direction. It is up to you to choose to be misslead or know the truth.

 

Because the guarantees - and the British and French government decision to act on this guarantees - made the difference between the German and Soviet actions sparking a world war or them simply replaying the Polish partition in the 20th century.

You are the only one making assumptions about right and wrong based upon a tu quoque fallacy. The Soviets, or Nazis, or whoever were "justified" because the British did, or the French did it, or the Poles did it "too'. Meanwhile, LWD was remarking as to the accuracy of the accounts with regards to what happened.

The only hypocrisy and misleading going on here appears to be from you - tu quoque arguments are inherently fallacious. On top of that you have been making blatantly incorrect statements and then shift the goalposts when corrected...when you bother to acknowledge you misstated things.

 

Matthew 5:3

 

Winning the war has very little to do with who writes history...

The Germans lost the war, yet they have written or influenced a lot of the written history...Comrade General was complaining about such writings earlier in this thread.
The Japanese also lost the war, yet have written & teach their own history pertaining to World War II. Only recently, have they begun changing it to mention more of their Sins.
Conversely, the Soviets won the war, and have written their own "official" history which exonerates and absolves themselves of any Sin. Is that fair?

You seem to only focus on Western Propaganda, while remaining oblivious to Soviet Propaganda...Why is that?

Every author, to a point, does this. There are few, if any, history books that are completely objective.

 

Seriously? Blessed are the poor in spirit... That's a new dodge even for the dodgiest of dodgers...

 

Nonsense. Mine are totally objective from my point of view.

 

Point taken...Present company excepted.

 

Rich did an excellent job of answering that one.

Not really. My original assumption is that it is wrong to invade other countries for the completely selfish reasons (i.e. conquest) or to break treaties for similar reasons. The Germans and Soviets did so.

Nope.

Wrong again. It may bias the investigation but it does not preordain the result as long as the investigator is honest and really trying to find out what will happen

??? I'm not misleading anyone and I prefer to know the truth although that's not always obvious. Your recent posts seam to indicate you have chosen to do the former however and leave the latter open to question.

 

You all fail to understand that I am defending Germans, not the Soviets.
Germany was just one of the participants in hostilities taking place during the first half of 20th century. To find the real culprits we should look elsewhere: greedy decadent British aristocrats and Prussian Junkers have initiated hostilities that have caused all that suffering at the old continent and elsewhere. What we hear today is just a narrative intended to shift responsibility for World Wars on Germans and Russians.
Britain has succeed to weaken and reduce Germany to a vassal state but in a process has lost the Empire and are currently playing the second fiddle to the real Winner – US.

Someone please rellocate this offtopic conversation somewhere else and allow us to focuss to the subject of the present thread. Please.