September 1, 1939. WWII just started

[Big George]

Originally Posted by rebel12

German troops attacked Poland starting what we now call WWII.

How has our understanding of WWII changed in the past 50 years?

What's probably changed as much as anything, in the past 50 years, is the understanding that the beginning of WW2 actually came in November of 1918, when WW1 "ended."

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Big George

What's probably changed as much as anything, in the past 50 years, is the understanding that the beginning of WW2 actually came in November of 1918, when WW1 "ended."

An excellent point, but one predicted in 1919

On June 5, 1919, John Maynard Keynes wrote a note to Lloyd George informing the prime minister of his resignation as a negotiator of the Versailles Treaty negotiations in protest of what he say as the impending "devastation of Europe."

[Big George]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

An excellent point, but one predicted in 1919

On June 5, 1919, John Maynard Keynes wrote a note to Lloyd George informing the prime minister of his resignation as a negotiator of the Versailles Treaty negotiations in protest of what he say as the impending "devastation of Europe."

I have my doubts, though, that Keynes had any foresight about what would eventually unfold - specifically, the rise of Nazism, etc. Even to this day, and even in hindsight, it's still baffling to think that so many things could converge to create the "perfect storm" that would lead to the horrors of Europe in the 30s & 40s.

[rebel12]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Are you seriously asking me whether or not Chamberlain and or the Conservative Party were ardent anti-communist? Seriously?

Every normal person in the world was anti-communist. The world knew what was happening in Russia at this time however I do not recall any hostile act towards Soviet Union. Do you?

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Poland signed a non-aggression pact with the USSR in 1932, and one with Germany in 1934. On January 26, 1934 Poland under the dictatorship of Marshal Pilsudski renounced its alliance with France. As a result Poland refused to side with the Czechs and denied the Red Army passage through Poland to come to their aid.

Hillarious. When Germans attacked the Czechs Pilsudski was already dead.
When did Russia offered to help Czechs?
And if, why would Poland allow Red Army on its territory?

Originally Posted by ovcatto

This despite the attempts of France, not Chamberlain who didn't care for a Soviet Polish alliance, to form an alliance between Poland and the Soviet Union to be a strong stalwart on the eastern front in order to contain Germany aggression in 1934.

What aggresion in 1934? Lol

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Your argument, if you would keep track of it, isn't about equal signs but rather that "German troops attacked Poland starting what we now call WWII." When in actuality WWII had begun even before the invasion of Czechoslovakia.

That's not what is usually considered start of WWII.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Mental jump? The two most anti-communist governments in Europe were Britain and Germany, up until the signing of the Soviet-Nazi Pact, Stalin had been seeking an alliance with both Great Britain and Poland he was rebuffed by both. Facing what he knew to be the inevitable war with Germany he signed a pact with the Nazis with the then secret provision that they would both invade and divide Poland. For what reason? To gain a territorial buffer between the Germany and the Soviet Union in the hopes that Germany and the alliance of France and Great Britain would refight WWI and thus eliminating both threats posed by Britain and Germany.

England and Poland rebuffed Stalin? LoL
This murderous SOB was playing his game until very end, even when Ribbentrop-Molotov was already signed. RoTFl.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

(getting back to your who did England invade, see the British led intervention in the Russian Revolution 1918-1920)
This is the history forum not the public relations forum. I don't really care about who appeared to be what but rather an understanding of what actually took place.

And why not? They were helping the legal government of Russia, the allies didn't go to Russia for territorial gains. RoTFL.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Russians had a border with Germany across Poland?
Seriously 2.0!

Seriously. Russia and Germany had a border in 1939 as Stalin incorporated Polish territories into Soviet Union right away.

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Neither did the demilitarized zone in the Rhineland nor the Maginot Line provide the envisioned protection for France.

Where did you read that commie propaganda? RoTFL. You are worse than erasure LOL

[NJGOAT]

It's nice that you want to dicuss such lightweight topics...lol. The only thing I think we need to decide is whether or not this is being looked at from a post-war viewpoint or a then current viewpoint. That would change my opinion on how to answer some of these.

Originally Posted by rebel12

Definitely. The importance of the Eastern Front can't be overlooked. For a long time the only European Front was in Soviet Union. There is also a question if we should look at the Soviets as victims of WWII or acknowledge that by entering into Ribbentrop-Molotov, flirting with the Nazis and invading Poland in 1939 that became aggressors and made the war and early German successes in the West, possible?
"Soviet Union and WWII - a victim or a villain"?

I would have to say in hindisght, they were more the villain then the victim. It's no secret that Stalin wanted to re-take territories that were once part of Russia. Also, while Stalin was the biggest advocate of "Socialism in One Country", that was only to be used as a basis to export the revolution to additional nations. He was different from Lenin and Trotsky in this line of thought, but not totally 180 as some like to claim, he basically thought step one was securing the revolution in one nation. Step two was using the power of that nation to support the global revolution nation-by-nation. I think Stalin saw the upheaval caused by Hitler as an opportunity to do two things:

1. Strengthen the position of the Soviet Union by regaining "lost" territories.
2. Gain new territory to export the revolution to which would continue to strengthen the Soviet Union. This is basically Marxism 101, it won't work unless it's a world revolution.

I don't think it's fair to say that Stalin's actions alone allowed the situation to happen. Certainly Britain and France had opportunities to stop Hitler sooner. Also, I think one could make the argument that a more forceful show by the west against Hitler, may have made Stalin question his ability to act as an aggressor in Eastern Europe.

Bloodlands by Snyder does an excellent job framing the situation into reality. Whether it is Hitler eliminating the "untermensch" for Lebensraum or Stalin eliminating the class enemies of the proletariate and exporting communism, what we basically ended up with were two ideologies clashing over the plains of Eastern Europe with millions caught in between them. Ultimately they were simply fighting over whom would gain the 'priviledge' of replacing the centrist liberal/capitalist establishment, the far right (fascism) or the far left (communism). In that way, both were the villains.

There is also "Operation Unthinkable", the question of de facto Russian occupation of many Central European countries like Lithuania, territorial gains at the expense of Poland (East of Poland), Finland (Karelia), Romania (Moldova), Japan and installing puppet governments in the so-called Eastern Block and a few South-Asian countries. At the end of war Russian reneged on the treaties they signed with the Allies and de facto occupied many Central European countries until the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Do you think the Allies should have attacked Soviet Union in 1945?

In hindsight it seems the answer should be, of course. We would have avoided decades of the Cold War and all of its associated issues and Eastern Europe wouldn't have been plunged behind the "Iron Curtain". However, I don't think it was possible to do and there was no guarantee of victory. The one Allied "ace in the sleeve" was of course the atomic bomb, but many of the Soviet cities and industrial areas were out of range of our bombers, Soviet defenses were significantly greater then Japans and honestly, what good does it do to drop an atomic bomb on rubble? After that, it's the comparison of military forces, the Soviets had a larger army and the US was already struggling with manpower issues at the end of the war. Then we have the issue of supplies over even more extended lines.

Finally, the problem then becomes the American people themselves. They spent the past 4 years being told we were supporting our "Russian Allies in the struggle against Hitler". US public support of the war was waning and it is doubtful Americans would have felt the necessity to continue to sacrifice to drive back the Soviets. Then we have the issue of, to what end? Drive them back into Russia? Force a collapse of the Soviet government? What's the goal? As popular as the regime was after defeating Germany and winning the "Great Patriotic War" I doubt 'regime change' would have been easy or welcomed. If it was just to drive them back into Russia, then we end up with an even larger permanent commitment to the defense of Europe and doing it in countries that lacked any kind of major base to help offset that commitment. Then the reality of having to pay to fix Eastern Europe would have come into play.

So, as much as I think it might have been the right thing to attempt, I don't think victory was assured and I just don't think it was realistic at the time.

There are also many unanswered, in my humble opinion, questions about participation in the Axix and German war effort of Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia.
Was their participation coerced and survivalist or simply opportunistic?

Romania - Tough to gauge in absolute terms because of the governmental changes, however, I think during the war they were largely opportunistic and enthusiastic in their support for Nazi Germany.

Bulgaria - Was survivalist while being opportunistic. They hoped to make gains without entering the war directly and were mostly succesful.

Hungary - Their suvivalism drove them to seek support from Germany and Italy in the 1930's, that bred enthusiasm for fascism and they were more then happy to take the opportunities offered them to expand their territory.

Slovakia - Pretty much coerced support based on suvivalism. It was either submit to being a client state of Nazi Germany or have the nation divided and absorbed into Poland and Hungary.

[banger]

Originally Posted by rebel12

German troops attacked Poland starting what we now call WWII.

How has our understanding of WWII changed in the past 50 years?

I'm not actually sure that the "understanding" has changed, as much as history has been re-written.

For reasons that I am not entirely sure of, nations such as Italy, Romania, Japan get a "pass" when it comes to their involvement in the war.

Consider, the modern view is that a Peace loving Japan was sitting in the Pacific minding it's won business when the "evil" United States came along and "nuked" them.

When was the last time that you have seen or heard any reference to the "Rape of Nanjing", the Bataan "Death March" the sexual enslavement of large numbers of Korean women.

How about the biological weapons testing on American P.O.W.s in Manchuria, or the wholesale slaughter of Philippine citizens during the battle to liberate Manila.

How about the wars of aggression b Italy in Ethiopia, or the supplying of troops and war materials to the German forces.

How many are aware that Romania was a WILLING alley of Germany during the war, supplying thousands of troops to fight along side of German units on the Eastern front.

I could go on, but I think my point is made.

We "learned" little that's new, except that if we ignore the actions of those we seek to obtain a "favors" from, people will forget and accept the falsehood of a "More Modern History".

Lastly, we have learned that if you wait long enough those who fought and bled, those who know the fact, those who lived the horrors....those individuals will pass from this Earth and their stories along with the truth will be buried with them.

When the day finally comes that the last of these people pass on, who will be left to challenge those who seek to modernize history.