After Poland was partitioned with Russia, only Germany was punished. Why leave out that key detail?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanoi
Printable View
After Poland was partitioned with Russia, only Germany was punished. Why leave out that key detail?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanoi
Because of the bit where Germany betrayed them launching a total war with genocidal aims and then they (USSR) succeeded in being on the wining side. Spending a lot blood for the winning side has its perks, its like sky miles. They upgrade you from a scary communist dictatorship the the UK and France were kinda thinking about attacking to you know Uncle Joe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayer
Is it relevant to the fact it was Germany first who invaded Poland? Funny enough their can't be a partition of Poland either without Germany wanting to invade and partition Poland in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayer
Sums up my opinion.
It highlights the fact that the Allies didn't care much for Poland, otherwise they would have tried protecting them from the soviets. But they only ever wanted to contain Germany.
It's funny, the war began with the justification to protect polish independence, and Poland did not get independence in the end.
Interwar Poland was a pretty bad actor in Europe, very hard to love.
UK and France promised to protect Poland against Germany. They had no ability to do so against the Soviets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayer
Well the Soviet Union wasn't going around annexing territories like Germany so why would they need to be contained?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayer
Are you trying to make a point about the Allies not doing enough to protect Poland? Cause it seems to me you just want vilify the Allies while trying to make Germany not seem so bad or not as responsible. Thats why you mentioned the Soviets in the first place right?
Regardless Germany still holds the blame for starting the war. Soviets would have never invaded Poland without the Germans doing so first and securing an agreement between them.
Sometimes winners do :wub: things.
"I am ashamedQuote:
Originally Posted by 95thrifleman
I am British and the worst thing we ever did in the whole of our history was to colonise america and unleash this vile depraved disgusting culture upon the world. Your successive presidents insist that America has a special relationship with us. You don't. We despise you. We don't want your crazy nutcase Trump visiting us and compromising our security. I hope our Queen spits in his face. You want to provoke terrorist attacks, fine, do it on your own filthy soil.
"
https://www.debate.org/opinions/is-a...countries-ever
Oh dear lord (if I believed) you found another internet site with ranters... Should this rant be on one of your other threads is seems to really apply to the OP topic. So we have a nominal British person here I suppose he or she would have preferred no US help in WW1 or 2? Strict neutrality perhaps or maybe even escorted convoys to sell to Germany? Or maybe like the CSA Alabama built subs here and let German tourist just happen to buy them? The Author I suppose has reflected on the UK came close taking up intervention to save the CSA? On Trump well now seeing as the majority of American voters did not vote for him you can't really pin him on all America. Besides the citizens of country run by May and her conservatives on a crash course for a hard Brexit are kind of living in glass houses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Just answer the question
"You want to provoke terrorist attacks, fine, do it on your own filthy soil."
They do seem to happen even when Trump is not there, and hey how about the IRA thing forget it already.
"We despise you"
Appropriate wording is I , unless you are actually the queen.
"Your successive presidents insist that America has a special relationship with us. You don't."
You know if I'm not mistake some of Brexit types were kinda counting and hinting somehow they would get free trade with the US predicated on that fact. Also as long as five eyes exits the UK does have a demonstrable special relationship with the US
Once again JATQ posting internet rants is not evidence is not useful data. There is a reason that Polls are difficult to construct and make errors and require professional statisticians to run. An open internet forum is not data, any more than the BS of a group off people around the bar (say of the wine bar used to run) is. Individually If say the conversation is about concrete that then the personal opinions of the two concrete contractors (regulars) sitting has value, they are demonstrably experts who make a living doing what they are talking about. Their opinions on say IT security or geopolitics not so much.
Quote:
Hmm..... okay..... let's say WW3 happens and this time, America isn't on the winning side...... it's okay to nuke New York and Philadelphia? ...
There won't be a winning side if it involves either the US or Russia tossing nukes. But in this context outline the way you would have preferred the war against japan to end.
So this opinion holds more weight than mine in your eyes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Just answer the question
What a retarded argument, UK and France had simply chosen not to punish the soviets, they also did not help Poland against Germany (phoney war).Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanoi
The polish were massively disappointed that british guarantees meant nothing and the british foreign minister rebuked the polish ambassador by stating mind your own business.
Now you are rewriting history, the Soviet Union in 1939 annexed Eastern Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estland and would have done the same with Finland if they were able to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanoi
Why would they need to be contained? Maybe you like Bolshevism with collectivization and rule by Moscow? After the war, the US made a U-turn and suddenly the soviets had to be contained.
I villify the Allies, because they were not the shining moral crusaders from Hollywood movies, but self-serving imperialists with a might makes right attitude, responsible for many bad things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanoi
Never heard of the Polish-Soviet War? The soviets started it without the germans, although Lenin asked the Weimar government if they could participate and open a western front. The soviets were cosignatory of the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty which divided Eastern Europe in half. Germany would not have dared to attack Poland without Stalin's permission, fearing a 2 front war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanoi
I don't understand the argument that Germany was the bad one for fighting the polish army in its prime, and not Stalin who went into Poland 3 weeks later when the polish were broken.
How where we supposed to fight the Russians in 1945 exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayer
Well presumably with a lot of Atomic weapons so Mayer could complain about the callus over use of tactically applied atomic weapons all across Germany as the US and UK tried to stop or destroy the red army before it pushed them back into France or the Channel. Maybe a second betrayal of Poland as well since the US/UK would be bombing the supply chain. The only option to deal with USSR superiority on the ground would atomic bombs and the general UK/US air superiority used to maximum extent. CBO mark 2 everywhere and anywhere - sorry mostly broken Europe you get more broken. Baku and surrounds would also have to glassed post haste, and subjected to follow up mass bombing.Quote:
Originally Posted by 95thrifleman
No they didn't have the ability to do so. France and the UK had no ability to go to war with both Germany and the Soviets. You have a point with the phony war since the Brits and French did leave the Poles out to dry, but we both know the Poles were :wub:ed regardless whenever France or the UK helped or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayer
If i am not mistaken the Soviets didn't annex the Baltics and invade Finland until 1940. Before then it was Germany doing the annexing, not the Soviets. The only time the Soviets started acting out was after WW2 had already started. They knew then the French and UK would be too preoccupied with the Germans to do any kind of real protesting against Soviet actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayer
The US didn't make some sort of U-turn on the Soviets. The problem with Soviet ambitions began before the war even ended. Churchill saw this coming and Truman did too.
So i'm right? vilify the Allies and make Germany not look so bad?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayer
Thats an outright lie. Hitler never went to Stalin to ask permission to invade Poland nor is that even why the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact even began.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloto...t_negotiations
Quote:
Before the treaty's signing, the Soviet Union conducted negotiations with the United Kingdom and France regarding a potential "Tripartite" alliance. Long-running talks between the Soviet Union and Germany over a potential economic pact expanded to include the military and political discussions, culminating in the pact, along with a commercial agreement signed four days earlier.
Quote:
In May, German war planners also became increasingly concerned that, without Russian supplies, Germany would need to find massive substitute quantities of 165,000 tons of manganese and almost 2 million tons of oil per year.[75] In the context of further economic discussions, on May 17, the Soviet ambassador told a German official that he wanted to restate "in detail that there were no conflicts in foreign policy between Germany and Soviet Russia and that therefore there was no reason for any enmity between the two countries."[76] Three days later, on May 20, Molotov told Count Friedrich Werner von der Schulenburg, the German ambassador in Moscow that he no longer wanted to discuss only economic matters, and that it was necessary to establish a "political basis",[77] which German officials saw an "implicit invitation."[76] Due to information provided by Scheliha, the Soviets knew that Germany did not want a diplomatic solution to the Danzig crisis and had decided to invade Poland in the summer of 1939.[78]
On May 26, German officials feared a potential positive result to come from the Soviets talks regarding proposals by Britain and France.[79] On May 30, fearing potential positive results from a British and French offer to the Soviets,[79] Germany directed its diplomats in Moscow that "we have now decided to undertake definite negotiations with the Soviet Union."[51] The ensuing discussions were channelled through the economic negotiation, because the economic needs of the two sides were substantial and because close military and diplomatic connections had been severed in the mid-1930s, leaving these talks as the only means of communication.[79]
Quote:
On July 18, Soviet trade representative Yevgeniy Barbarin visited Julius Schnurre, saying that the Soviets would like to extend and intensify German-Soviet relations.[94] On July 25, the Soviet Union and Germany were very close to finalizing the terms of a proposed economic deal.[95] On July 26, over dinner, the Soviets accepted a proposed three stage agenda which included the economic agenda first and "a new arrangement which took account of the vital political interests of both parties."[95][96][97] On July 28, Molotov sent a first political instruction to the Soviet ambassador in Berlin that finally opened the door to a political détente with Germany.[98]
Germany had learned about the military convention talks before the July 31 British announcement[83] and were skeptical that the Soviets would reach a deal with Britain and France during those planned talks in August.[99] On August 1, the Soviet ambassador stated that two conditions must be met before political negotiations could begin: a new economic treaty and the cessation of anti-Soviet attacks by German media, with which German officials immediately agreed.[95] On August 2, Soviet political discussions with France and Britain were suspended when Molotov stated they could not be restarted until progress was made in the scheduled military talks.[100]
The original talks between the Soviets and Germans had nothing to do with Poland or Eastern Europe but economic and military deals between the two. Only after Soviet-talks with the British and French failed did the Germans send this message to the Soviets:
The Germans didn't need to ask the Soviets to invade but securing a deal would be a better idea.Quote:
Hitler himself sent out a coded telegram to Stalin stating that because "Poland has become intolerable," Stalin must receive Ribbentrop in Moscow by August 23 at the latest to sign a Pact.[117] Controversy surrounds a related alleged Stalin's speech on August 19, 1939 asserting that a great war between the Western powers was necessary for the spread of World Revolution.[118] Historians debate whether that speech ever actually occurred.[118]
Even if the Pact was never signed and Germany decided not to invade Poland, its clear Germany had ambitions to invade or annex more land from various European countries. Why else seek out an economic and military deal with the Soviet Union for material and raw resources?
You can try and try to shift the blame, but the blame for WW2 started still firmly sits in the hands of Germany. The Soviets weren't going to invade Poland on their own.
We are talking about a secret protocol of the pact, the public should only see the economic cooperation part.
I don't retract my statement that british guarantees to Poland were worthless, Stalin wanted Poland and Hitler needed soviet backing to conquer anything without provoking a war on two fronts. In my opinion, Germany wasn't better or worse than its adversaries.
We've already discussed this...ad nauseam. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?
Read my source again. The secret protocol didn't exist until way later in Soviet-German talks. And that was only decided after talks with the British and French broke down. Initial talks between the Soviets and Germans never includes anything to do with Poland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayer
Hitler wanted Poland. Stalin was afraid of German ambitions beyond Poland (Baltics) and thought the West was trying to get them and the Germans to go to war to kill each other off.
Quote:
Hitler's fierce anti-Soviet rhetoric was one of the reasons why Britain and France decided that Soviet participation in the 1938 Munich Conference regarding Czechoslovakiawould be both dangerous and useless.[30] The Munich Agreement that followed[31] marked a partial German annexation of Czechoslovakia in late 1938 followed by its complete dissolution in March 1939,[32] which was part of the appeasement of Germany conducted by Chamberlain's and Daladier's cabinets.[33] This policy immediately raised the question of whether the Soviet Union could avoid being next on Hitler's list.[34] The Soviet leadership believed that the West wanted to encourage German aggression in the East[35] and that France and Britain might stay neutral in a war initiated by Germany, hoping that the warring states would wear each other out and put an end to both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.[36]
Hitler did not need Soviet backing. He needed Soviet resources which is the original reason the discussions even started.Quote:
For Germany, because an autarkic economic approach or an alliance with Britain were impossible, closer relations with the Soviet Union to obtain raw materials became necessary, if not just for economic reasons alone.[37] Moreover, an expected British blockade in the event of war would create massive shortages for Germany in a number of key raw materials.[38] After the Munich agreement, the resulting increase in German military supply needs and Soviet demands for military machinery, talks between the two countries occurred from late 1938 to March 1939.[39] The third Soviet Five Year Plan required new infusions of technology and industrial equipment.[37][40][clarification needed]German war planners had estimated serious shortfalls of raw materials if Germany entered a war without Soviet supply.[41]
This also shows German ambitions would have started the war no matter what. If it wasn't Poland, Hitler would have invaded elsewhere.
German was worse than its adversaries. It started the war then escalated it by invading and occupying Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Yugoslavia, and Greece all of which were not participants in the war.
Hell it was Germany who declared war on the US first after the Pearl Harbor attacks. Hitler liked to start a lot of :wub: he couldn't finish.
That thread is depressing, the people with the best arguments got banned. It's probably better to keep the alliedboos in this forum in their echo chamber.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludicus
True but that was a balanced argument with many people making rational arguments with actual sources about the question. Not mirror image of posts fishing for people to hate the US absolutely as well as the OP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludicus
The question here is there any other nation in WW2 who not have acted the same? I don't think so. Second while I know we disagree I think convincing the Emperor and the High Command to formally surrender and instruct the Japanese military and people to accept defeat was a pivotal gain that I don't think could not have been achieved by another solution without far grater loss of life (Japanese, their starving subjects and allied). The potential bitterness of a protracted invasion and the loss of US life might well have made anything but a draconian peace a thing out of reach.