Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sadly not everyone realizes this but, there was A LOT more to WW2 than what most people read about in history textbooks. For me, what I found interesting was that the CIA learned about and trained Iranian SAVAK agents in Nazi torture techniques during the Shah's reign.
Also, many medical "advances" that we have such as our understanding of hypothermia came from Nazi experimentation on concentration camp victims.
That's a pretty broad topic. I think for many people over the past 50 years, it has become about the personal stories of the war. The realization that the "Greatest Generation" is passing away rapidly has bred a desire to learn as much as possible of their personal stories, tell them and remember them. Ultimately, I think that's what has changed the most. People (sort of) get the basics, now it's all about the details and personal stories and how they fit in. Personally, I stay very much engaged on the topic of WW2 because of the incredible depth of information available. You could study it for a lifetime and not know all there is to know on the topic.
Just on the topic of historical writing, I think there has been a large attempt over the past 10-20 years to bring the Eastern Front into focus for western audiences. Many of the best modern histories of the war are very focused on the Eastern Front and what happened there, placing those events into their proper context in deciding the outcome of the War in Europe.
That's a pretty broad topic. I think for many people over the past 50 years, it has become about the personal stories of the war. The realization that the "Greatest Generation" is passing away rapidly has bred a desire to learn as much as possible of their personal stories, tell them and remember them. Ultimately, I think that's what has changed the most. People (sort of) get the basics, now it's all about the details and personal stories and how they fit in. Personally, I stay very much engaged on the topic of WW2 because of the incredible depth of information available. You could study it for a lifetime and not know all there is to know on the topic.
Just on the topic of historical writing, I think there has been a large attempt over the past 10-20 years to bring the Eastern Front into focus for western audiences. Many of the best modern histories of the war are very focused on the Eastern Front and what happened there, placing those events into their proper context in deciding the outcome of the War in Europe.
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"?
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?
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?
Speaking of the fall of the Berlin wall... does anyone here [besides me]
think it more than coincidence that the Berlin wall fell on a Third Reich
holy day?
November 9, Blood of the Holy Martyrs [9-11 German/Euro style]
1989, the 100th anniversary of Hitler's birthday year.
.
Last edited by king's highway; 09-04-2012 at 06:07 PM..
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"?
\
Why does your chronology of WWII skip over the annexation of Austria, reoccupation of the Sudetenland, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia with the tacit approval of the western powers? Are we to revise history and absolve Chamberlain in an effort to shift blame to Stalin, when it was Chamberlain's hostility towards the Soviet Union that abetted Poland's ill-advised attempt to remain somehow neutral?
Absent a real alliance with Poland who was under any illusion that if Germany followed through on its ultimatums of regarding Danzig that the from perspective of everyone especially Stalin and the CPSU that war would inevitably be visited on Poland, the single buffer between Germany and the Soviet Union? Or the view of the Soviets that the west cared little if not out and out glee at the prospect of a Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union?
Frankly, I would think Stalin a fool to not come to some accord, temporary as it might be, to provide a buffer between the Soviets and Germany while the west and the Germany fought it out for control of western Europe.
Why does your chronology of WWII skip over the annexation of Austria, reoccupation of the Sudetenland, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia with the tacit approval of the western powers? Are we to revise history and absolve Chamberlain in an effort to shift blame to Stalin, when it was Chamberlain's hostility towards the Soviet Union that abetted Poland's ill-advised attempt to remain somehow neutral?
How was Chamberlain hostile to the Soviets? When was Poland neutral?
Anyway you look at it it is hard to place an equal sign between allowing Hitler to annex Austria and invade Czechoslovakia, and Russian invasion of Poland... I am not aware of England and France invading anybody...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Absent a real alliance with Poland who was under any illusion that if Germany followed through on its ultimatums of regarding Danzig that the from perspective of everyone especially Stalin and the CPSU that war would inevitably be visited on Poland, the single buffer between Germany and the Soviet Union? Or the view of the Soviets that the west cared little if not out and out glee at the prospect of a Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union?
How did you Stalin made a mental jump from being afraid of German invasion to invading Poland together with Hitler?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Frankly, I would think Stalin a fool to not come to some accord, temporary as it might be, to provide a buffer between the Soviets and Germany while the west and the Germany fought it out for control of western Europe.
That's one way of looking at it but invading Poland then Finland in Romania he hardly made Stalin look like a victim and more like an agressor looking for territorial gains..
And where was the buffer? Russians had a border with Germany across Poland? Given how Barbarossa played out that "Polish buffer" did not even provide any protection..
Are you seriously asking me whether or not Chamberlain and or the Conservative Party were ardent anti-communist? Seriously?
Quote:
When was Poland neutral?
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. 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.
Quote:
Anyway you look at it it is hard to place an equal sign between allowing Hitler to annex Austria and invade Czechoslovakia, and Russian invasion of Poland
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.
Quote:
How did you Stalin made a mental jump from being afraid of German invasion to invading Poland together with Hitler?
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.
(getting back to your who did England invade, see the British led intervention in the Russian Revolution 1918-1920)
Quote:
That's one way of looking at it but invading Poland then Finland in Romania he hardly made Stalin look like a victim and more like an agressor looking for territorial gains..
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.
Quote:
And where was the buffer?
Seriously?
[quote]Russians had a border with Germany across Poland?
Seriously 2.0!
Quote:
Given how Barbarossa played out that "Polish buffer" did not even provide any protection..
Neither did the demilitarized zone in the Rhineland nor the Maginot Line provide the envisioned protection for France.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
