View Full Version : Stalin Escapes the Blame of WW2

11-24-2004, 04:58 AM
Let us break down the facts: on the morning of september the 1st, 1939, Germany invades Poland in what marks the 'official' start of Second World War. Hitler is remembered forever as he who would ignite WW2. And this much is true. Later on historians would split the blame between Chamberlain et co for their desperate trying to sue for peace rather than face the growing threat. That's also true. Historians further speculate that the Soviet-German non-agression pact (aka the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact), signed only a week before the War, was the spark. Ditto for that fact.

But there's more.

Because Stalin would later on join the Allies and have his nation bare the burden of War like no other, and because the authors of our school-books think it's better to use paper to print out tabloid pictures than keep record of history, a lot of his actions--good and bad alike--go ignored. Few people would know that Stalin had engaged in hostility with at least six souvereign nations before he got invaded: Japan (in Manchuria), Finland (whose part of territory he conquered), Lituania, Estonia, Latvia (each of whom he anexed to the USSR) and Poland. The last one is most interesting because it was an invasion agreed upon by both Hitler and Stalin. The two leaders agreed to "split" Poland in the aforementioned Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, named after the two signees. Funny it should be named that however. You see, Stalin never signed anywhere. He wasn't even a head of State before he delcared himself one in may of 1941. It was Vyacheslav Molotov, the first secretary of Politbury, who was listed on all official Soviet documents, including this famous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. But rest assured Stalin held all the reigns to power and the keys to NKVD office. He was equally present in that meeting held between Molotov and Joachim Ribbentrop, German's foreign minister. He knew all the agreements stated therein; he knew he was to invade Poland as part of the deal. No Stalin appologist can plea ignorance on his behalf. So why didn't he strike on the first of september? Why wait two more weeks (when he eventually attacked)? I can only speculate on that one. What I do know is he consciously agreed and follow thru with the invasion--an invasion, I remind you, that was the 'official' start of the Second World War. Oh, sure, he has his arguments to invade. Everyone usually does. He had argued that he merely wanted to claim territories lost by Soviet Union to Germany following the Brest-Litovsk treaty who in turn had lost this land following the Versailles treaty one year after. But this doesn't take from the fact that Stalin had acted as an agressor on at least several occasions in face of souvereign nations, including Poland. So why does he not share the blame for the start of the War in a way that Hitler does?

An original topic for you. Informative too. And, most of all, not clichee!

I rule... with a humungous cock.

Teh end. QED.

11-24-2004, 06:13 AM
Gotta do more reading into this. Interesting. Hmmm.

11-24-2004, 07:42 AM
You ain't gonna find much Stalin apologists.

However, one can argue that these "Secret Protocols" only happened to pop-up after the Khrushevite purge of all Stalin information. So how reliable can this be? (the Division of Poland is what I'm referring to.) I am not in expert in this argument, I am only repeating what I have read somewhere else, cause as I said, I don't defend Stalin's actions.

Leonard Shapiro describes the Winter War with Finland as being mainly to protect St. Petersburg from shell fire or something like that.(I believe they did try and negotiate with Finland that small border change. It did not work however.) I think a lot of this argument though, depends on whether Finland was neutral or not, and it's condition during WW2.

Don't know about the rest to give any opinion on.

11-24-2004, 02:41 PM
The plans to devide Poland were confirmed by both the Soviets and the German documents, who incidently were great at keeping paperwork. Don't think there is much secret to that one anymore.

Leonard Shapiro describes the Winter War with Finland as being mainly to protect St. Petersburg from shell fire or something like that.(I believe they did try and negotiate with Finland that small border change. It did not work however.) I think a lot of this argument though, depends on whether Finland was neutral or not, and it's condition during WW2.

Leonard Shapiro is a fag. I should leave it at that. But to offer you more information - Finland was neutral, as was the rest of Scandinavia. Stalin of course knew that Hitler wasn't to respect their neutrality (and he was right) so he wanted to secure land to protect own ends. That doesn't take from the fact that acted as an aggressor against a souvereign, non-hostile country. Most people would forgive him this one however when Finland went on to help the Nazis in the later stages of the war.

Here's another fun fact: The General charged with defending the Finnish borders, Gustaf Mannerheim (after whom the Mannerheim line is named) had made a career in Tzar's military. He fought in the Japan-Russo war, WW1 and bits of the Civil War with the Whites.

11-26-2004, 05:49 AM
Gee, stop replying to the topic everyone. Don't exhaust your keyboard so much lest you won't be able to discuss the real interesting topics like abortion.

11-26-2004, 06:04 AM
well, first of all, not many people on these boards know much about the subject (including myself) so how could we talk about it?
California Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (http://california.dispensaries.org/)

The Cheshire Cat
11-26-2004, 09:49 AM
So, what you're essentially saying is that because Stalin was on our side, we aren't pointing the finger at him?

I don't know what's so groundbreaking about that, if wer blamed our allies for starting the war we couldn't justify allying with them as easily than if we just blame the other guy. Given Stalin's track record it's hard enough to justify allying with him as is.

11-26-2004, 09:51 AM
I have to run, but I'll say that my parents aren't too in love with Russia for promising aid against the Germans during the Warsaw Uprising, and then just sitting on the other side of the Wisła until they got their shit fucked up.

11-26-2004, 11:05 AM
I think Stalin got his just desserts in history books when it came to what he did to the former communist countries in Eastern Europe.

Question, what do you make of the real reason for WW2 being that after WW1 the reparitions that Germany had to pay to everyone else crippled their economy meant that it was easy for someone like Hitler to gain power?

11-26-2004, 11:21 AM
That's a pretty well-known theory that is even taught in school, so if you are presenting it as a topic for discussion, it's not really groundbreaking.

11-26-2004, 11:45 AM

And I don't think Stalin had done that much bad to Eastern Europe, compared to what the French had done in North Africa for example. With the exception of the ruthless, merciless war, I can't recall a single instance where Stalin would have acted worse than anyone else in his shoes. Remember that this was the aftermath of the most disastrous war--on all levels from political to racial to ecomic to material--man has seen. The first real encouter between the Soviets and the Eastern European locals came in '56 in Hungaria--and that very year the English and the French were tied in the Suez canal. I'd even go as far as suggesting that USSR's liberation and occupation of the territories has prooved quite positive on the short term for the war-worn countries.

11-26-2004, 01:52 PM
Longterm, things weren't so peachy.