Jump to content

Hitler & Stalin - 65 years later


Recommended Posts

It was fitting for our Prime Minister to go to Holland. Among various facts that I have learned recently, more Canadians died in WWII than Swedes. And about 75% of Dutch Jews died in the Holocaust.

Winston Churchill:

If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.

Here is

on the 9 May 1945. Whatever one can say about Stalin, he managed to rid the world of this despicable psychopath Adolf Hitler.

You can see and hear Hitler speaking at Nuremburg

. (I have been to Nuremburg and the grounds are much as they were in the 1930s. The Congress Hall is also intact. As a result, I am suspicious of any State construction of large halls or stadium.)

This is Churchill's statement about the end of the war.

I suggest that you listen to the sound of the voices and reckon, using modern ears, whose voice sounds most reasonable. Which voice sounds most fanatical?

----

As to the question of which country defeated Nazi Germany and Hitler, it has always seemed obvious to me that individual soldiers accomplished this. Russia or England or America or even Canada did not defeat fascism. Individual Russian and Canadian soldiers fought against the Nazi soldiers. Who is to say which individual soldier accomplished more?

I am certain that some Canadian soldiers accomplished more than an any Russian soldier. As both Tolstoy and Napoleon observed, war is a collective effort accomplished by individuals.

And while I can understand why a Russian soldier might fight to defend the Motherland from an invader, it is less obvious to me why a Canadian or American soldier should die in Holand or France to defeat this German Hitlerian scourge.

----

Should modern Germans carry this weight on their shoulders, this "choice" of their grandparents? I dunno. I would hope that this madness is never repeated but like financial euphoria, irrational exuberance, it seems inevitable. So, maybe the answer is not a scheme to avoid this madness but rather a scheme to contain it when it happens.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I suggest that you listen to the sound of the voices and reckon, using modern ears, whose voice sounds most reasonable. Which voice sounds most fanatical?

To my ears Hitler is clearly the most fanatical sounding, based on those three clips.

As to the question of which country defeated Nazi Germany and Hitler, it has always seemed obvious to me that individual soldiers accomplished this. Russia or England or America or even Canada did not defeat fascism. Individual Russian and Canadian soldiers fought against the Nazi soldiers. Who is to say which individual soldier accomplished more?

It is true that it is individuals that accomplish deeds. However, keep in mind that of the individual soldiers that fought in the war, there was many many times more Russians than Canadians. If you add up their individual contributions and compare that to the sum of the contributions of Canadian soldiers... well, the result is obvious.

I am certain that some Canadian soldiers accomplished more than an any Russian soldier.

Based on what? Just patriotic bravado? Canadians are the best so some Canadian individual must have accomplished more than any Russian possibly could have?

Should modern Germans carry this weight on their shoulders, this "choice" of their grandparents?

They shouldn't. Germany pays reparations to the few remaining Holocaust survivors but once those are all dead in ~40 years they will be done. That being said, I'm sure there is a whole guilt industry in Germany, just as there is in the rest of the Western world, which thrives off telling us of the misdeeds of prior generations. Only difference is in the US this guilt is mostly about slavery and racism; in Canada it is about natives, Chinese immigrants, and Quebec; in Europe it is about imperialism and colonialism, etc.

I dunno. I would hope that this madness is never repeated but like financial euphoria, irrational exuberance, it seems inevitable. So, maybe the answer is not a scheme to avoid this madness but rather a scheme to contain it when it happens.

That scheme would be preventive war by alliances of sane nations against rising belligerents before they can gain too much power. Something that the West is presently failing at miserably, with certain of its enemies well on the way to developing nuclear weapons and nothing definitive being done to prevent it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true that it is individuals that accomplish deeds. However, keep in mind that of the individual soldiers that fought in the war, there was many many times more Russians than Canadians. If you add up their individual contributions and compare that to the sum of the contributions of Canadian soldiers... well, the result is obvious.
WTF? "... add up their their individual contributions... "?

How should I add them up? Should I consider blue-eyed soldiers more than brown-eyed?

Bonam, it is individual soldiers who defeated this scourge of Hitler and his death camps. Some of these soldiers were tall, others short. Some were brown-eyed, others had blue eyes. Some were Canadian, others were American and still others were Russian.

The fact that more brown-eyed soldiers died defeating Hitler is no more relevant than saying more Russians died. When it comes to death, it is grandly irrelevant whether you are brown-eyed, blue-eyed, Russian, American or Canadian.

Individuals chose to fight in World War II.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TrueMetis

Individuals chose to fight in World War II.

Well yes and no, in Canada most of the soldiers chose to go, in Russia not so much.

As for the speeches Hitler sounded the most facist with Stalin second and Churchill the most reasonable. But then I have no clue what Hitler and Stalin were saying so for all I know they were talking about something perfectly reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that more brown-eyed soldiers died defeating Hitler is no more relevant than saying more Russians died.

Nonsense. Realizing just how many Russians died in WWII and how that completely reshaped the USSR is certainly not irrelevant. For Canadians, life went on, with the occasional family knowing someone who got killed in the war. For Russia, it was a rupture in the fabric of history. Entire families, towns, villages, were wiped out. Of my grandmother's family, she was the only survivor out of over 10 living before the war, the rest having perished before they could be evacuated from Western areas, or starving to death in Leningrad, or freezing to death in the refugee camps in Sibera, or killed in the battles to push Germany out. To this day, the names and exact numbers of the countless millions who perished remain unknown.

Russia fought WWII with its every breath, every Russian was affected, everyone, civilian and soldier, sacrificed immensely. To try to ignore this reality and instead make the claims that you are making is frankly revolting. And the part I don't understand is why. Is it really just some kind of blind ultrapatriotism that drives you to make these statements? To try to downplay the reality of how other nations struggled in WWII to glorify Canada's minor contribution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know that roughly 27 million Russians were killed during the great patriotic war. Estimates of Stalin's numbers range from 10-60 million which is a pretty large gap. Best estimate is around the same numnber as the war.

Just equal, or just slightly lower, that doesn't make him a better guy in my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TrueMetis

Many Russians died because they weren't proberly armed. That isn't the fault of the Canadian soilder.

And didn't have proper leaders. Leadership is important to, hard to fight a battle when your leader has killed most of the competant commanders.

Edited by TrueMetis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And while I can understand why a Russian soldier might fight to defend the Motherland from an invader, it is less obvious to me why a Canadian or American soldier should die in Holand or France to defeat this German Hitlerian scourge.

Because if the rest of the British Empire and the US had not got involved in the war, it's pretty likely that Hitler, no longer needing to worry so much about his hold on Western Europe, could have concentrated on Russia. While the Russian campaign was a disaster in a lot of ways, the fact is that both Lend-Lease with the United States and the British Empire redirecting a lot of its own armaments shipments to Russia bought it the time it needed to build up its military. Take out the United States, and to a certain extent the other parts of the British Empire like Australia and Canada, it's quite possible that Churchill's greatest fear, that the Soviet regime would be driven across the Urals and Germany gain European Russia, would have come to pass.

However, historical what-ifs, as fun as they are, are rather pointless. Canada was a part of the British Empire at the time, and as such, responded to the call of the King to come to the aid of Britain. The United States, while at first willing to supply armaments to Britain and Russia, was ultimately both pushed and pulled into war. Pushed by Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor and pulled by Roosevelt who felt (rightly I think) that the United States own ultimate well-being was best served by assuring that the Axis was crushed and as much liberty as possible was restored. Perhaps he was also mindful of the fact that the rise of Nazism in Germany was in part the fault of the United States, whose refusal to join the League of Nations after its own President had been so key in negotiating its creation, and who had offered such easy credit terms to Germany, thus setting up the country for a wild fall when the world economy collapsed in 1929-1930, not to mention pushing France into absurdly large disarmament quotas while, along with Britain, turning a blind eye to Germany's own violations, played a part.

I think Churchill himself summed it up best in the introduction to the first part of his History of World War II:

"How the English-speaking peoples through their unwisdom, carelessness, and good nature allowed the wicked to rearm."

This is as an inclusive a statement about the Allied contribution to the rise of Nazism as has ever been written. Frankly, the first chapter of his History of WWII should be required reading for every child in school.

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that how they refer to the second world war in re-education centres these days?

As always Morris, you are a fool.

No, that is what the Russian called it from the get-go. My grandfather served on an RN VW class destroyer during WWII protecting the convoys running up to Archangel to supply the Russians. Things he told me that he saw during that time and of the determination of the average Russian man, woman and child to get at the German invaders and exact pay back which made the British peoples efforts and determination pale in comparison.

My Grandfather passed on a few years back and he left me his campaign medals. The one he was most proud off was the one issued to him by the Soviet Government years after the war ended, in recognition of the service and aid he and his fellow sailors provided to the Russian people during that very bleak part of their history.

Edited by Sabre Rider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... Perhaps he was also mindful of the fact that the rise of Nazism in Germany was in part the fault of the United States, whose refusal to join the League of Nations after its own President had been so key in negotiating its creation, and who had offered such easy credit terms to Germany, thus setting up the country for a wild fall when the world economy collapsed in 1929-1930, not to mention pushing France into absurdly large disarmament quotas while, along with Britain, turning a blind eye to Germany's own violations, played a part.

Wow...you have quite the imagination....Nazism the "fault" of the United States? Even a gradeschooler can quote far better influences stemming from WWI and your own "empire". See "Treaty of Versailles" and "Washington Naval Treaty"

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My grandfather served on an RN VW class destroyer during WWII protecting the convoys running up to Archangel to supply the Russians. Things he told me that he saw during that time and of the determination of the average Russian man, woman and child to get at the German invaders and exact pay back which made the British peoples efforts and determination pale in comparison.

My Grandfather passed on a few years back and he left me his campaign medals. The one he was most proud off was the one issued to him by the Soviet Government years after the war ended, in recognition of the service and aid he and his fellow sailors provided to the Russian people during that very bleak part of their history.

You must get around sometime and explain to me why I should care what your grandfather did....cause what ever he did, has no bearing on either the topic or why a Canadian girl should use a propagandic label...

As always Morris, you are a fool.

No, that is what the Russian called it from the get-go.

From the get go eh? you sure about that? Is that what they were calling it when they invaded the Baltic nations and eastern poland?

As always Morris, you are a fool.

You have me at the disadvantage..you seem to know me, but I do not recall you, probably because you are too insignificant to be remembered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must get around sometime and explain to me why I should care what your grandfather did....cause what ever he did, has no bearing on either the topic or why a Canadian girl should use a propagandic label...

From the get go eh? you sure about that? Is that what they were calling it when they invaded the Baltic nations and eastern poland?

You have me at the disadvantage..you seem to know me, but I do not recall you, probably because you are too insignificant to be remembered.

First of all, not a girl. Thanks. Secondly, not a propaganda label. It's what the war is actually termed as in Russia. In my last year of studies I focused heavily in Russian politics. When referring to the two together, I suppose it naturally comes out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, not a girl. Thanks. Secondly, not a propaganda label. It's what the war is actually termed as in Russia. In my last year of studies I focused heavily in Russian politics. When referring to the two together, I suppose it naturally comes out.

if you focused on russian politics and you don;t think "the great patriotic war? is a propaganda label, I assume you failed...

..here's a hint, what did the russians call the war before they were double crossed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow...you have quite the imagination....Nazism the "fault" of the United States? Even a gradeschooler can quote far better influences stemming from WWI and your own "empire". See "Treaty of Versailles" and "Washington Naval Treaty"

Maybe for your next trick you should learn how to read. I didn't say the US was solely responsible for Nazism. In general, all the Allies were, but Britain and the US played particular roles. One of the biggest was in the severe disarmament levels as they pushed on France, only, a few years later, to stick their hands in their pockets when Hitler rearmed the Rhineland a few years later. The US bears a good deal of responsibility, however, for walking away from the League of Nations.

I recommend that you, once you have mastered functional literacy, take my advice and read the first chapters of Churchill's History of WWII. He doesn't solely blame the US, but, in general, he blames the Allies for their outrageous reparation demands from Germany and then, after seemingly feeling guilty about it all a decade later, letting Germany do anything it wanted, while still enforcing conditions on France that left the Low Countries and the Maginot Line an open sore just waiting for the Germany army (whose General Staff had been secretly meeting under the auspices of the Weimar Republic, thus preserving that most important aspect of the might Prussian military intact).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As always Morris, you are a fool.

No, that is what the Russian called it from the get-go. My grandfather served on an RN VW class destroyer during WWII protecting the convoys running up to Archangel to supply the Russians. Things he told me that he saw during that time and of the determination of the average Russian man, woman and child to get at the German invaders and exact pay back which made the British peoples efforts and determination pale in comparison.

Considering how often Britain, when Stalin would send his threatening and whining telegraphs to Churchill begging for more armaments, gave in and redirected Lend-Lease goods to Germany, further risking its own merchant marine fleet and setting back its own war effort, I think the average Russian man, woman and child should be bloody well thinking the British Empire. If Britain had ultimately capitulated, the average Russian man, woman and child would have likely spent a long time under harsh Nazi masters who thought Slavs were only marginally better than Jews.

What the average Russian man, woman and child should do is spit and piss on the memory Stalin for emboldening Hitler and for so seriously damaging the Russian Army in his paranoid fits to rid the world of anyone his insane imaginings convinced him was a threat.

My Grandfather passed on a few years back and he left me his campaign medals. The one he was most proud off was the one issued to him by the Soviet Government years after the war ended, in recognition of the service and aid he and his fellow sailors provided to the Russian people during that very bleak part of their history.

It was a propaganda label to try to cover up Stalin's ineptitude in basically purging the army in the 1930s, forcing the Soviets to basically create a officer class on the fly. Let's not forget the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact or the fact that the USSR was selling Germany steel right up

until the morning of the invasion.

You have a lot of bullcrap propaganda to unlearn, my friend. Russia was as much the author of its own misfortunes as any of the other Allies were, and let's never forget how it took the opportunity to steal territory from Finland.

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe for your next trick you should learn how to read. I didn't say the US was solely responsible for Nazism. In general, all the Allies were, but Britain and the US played particular roles. One of the biggest was in the severe disarmament levels as they pushed on France, only, a few years later, to stick their hands in their pockets when Hitler rearmed the Rhineland a few years later. The US bears a good deal of responsibility, however, for walking away from the League of Nations.

Nonsense....the League of Nations would not / could not have prevented Nazism or Imperial Japan. You are projecting American power and influence to your own ends and judgement...after the fact.

I recommend that you, once you have mastered functional literacy, take my advice and read the first chapters of Churchill's History of WWII. He doesn't solely blame the US, but, in general, he blames the Allies for their outrageous reparation demands from Germany and then, after seemingly feeling guilty about it all a decade later, letting Germany do anything it wanted, while still enforcing conditions on France that left the Low Countries and the Maginot Line an open sore just waiting for the Germany army (whose General Staff had been secretly meeting under the auspices of the Weimar Republic, thus preserving that most important aspect of the might Prussian military intact).

He can't blame the USA for the fractures in Europe or the direct complicity of the British empire. The Americans were reluctant to engage in any of this Euro-crap, and can hardly be "blamed" in retrospect. Yours is the worse kind of revisionist history, projecting American power out of context and policy of the time. Hell, the USA could have entered WWI on the side of Germany! God Save the Queen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense....the League of Nations would not / could not have prevented Nazism or Imperial Japan. You are projecting American power and influence to your own ends and judgement...after the fact.

It certainly couldn't when it was bereft of the authority of the United States, which you apparently need reminding, whose negotiators were so big on the idea in the first place.

He can't blame the USA for the fractures in Europe or the direct complicity of the British empire. The Americans were reluctant to engage in any of this Euro-crap, and can hardly be "blamed" in retrospect. Yours is the worse kind of revisionist history, projecting American power out of context and policy of the time. Hell, the USA could have entered WWI on the side of Germany! God Save the Queen!

He can blame the US for its part in the disarmament quotas that basically left France completely vulnerable. It, along with Britain, can be blamed for turning their backs on Germany when it began cheating on its tonnage limits even before Hitler came to power, and in particular for the long series of failures culminating in the Rearming of the Rhineland, when Britain, France and the United States could still have, relatively easily, pushed German troops out.

I never blamed the US solely. There was plenty of blame to spread around, but the Allies, for first imposing such severe penalties on Germany, and later the US and Britain for ignoring the penalties and letting Germany, both prior to and after Hitler's rise, do whatever it felt like, at times even seemingly justifying the breaches of the Treaty of Versailles, have to take a lot of the blame.

I know the Americans love to imagine themselves as purely saviors in WWII, but they got involved in WWI, found their way to Versailles and were as culpable as anyone else in what happened over the next 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...