Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 51

Thread: Stalin guilty for the war

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Italia
    Posts
    224

    Default Stalin guilty for the war

    By his incredible mistake, the Nazi-Soviet pact, Stalin caused the war.
    In fact Hitler himself didn't want a world war, but was aware he was running the risk of world war with the aggression against the Poland. Hitler's politics tactic was to seize the right moment to strike, sometime fronting high risks, but ever calculated.
    Never Hitler was before aware of risking the war like when he attacked Poland.
    But now, thanks to the Nazi-Soviet pact, he was free to run the maximum risk. With an hostile Russia, he never could run the risk of a great war. He couldn't do big moves.
    The Anglo-French were courting Stalin like Hitler, but they couldn't promise a free way in the east (Baltic States, Finland, Poland, Romenian Bucovina...) like Hitler cuold.
    But this price, at the moment, was good for Hitler, not for Stalin.
    The idea that Stalin wanted by this way to divert into the west or delay the nazi attack on Russia, doesn't hold: anybody knew that after the western powers, it would come the time of Russia. And was not a good idea to help the future enemy rather then the hated capitalist powers, if these last had to "divert or delay" the future enemy; but just for this.
    The sabotage of the war carried in France by the French Communist Party, following the Comintern orders, indicates that nor "diverting or delaying" was the point.
    So, accepting the Hitler's offers, in exchange of some territorial annexations, Stalin allowed Hitler to feel free at the shoulders, and starting (better: running the risk to start) the WWII.
    This fact was almost launching the Allies against Russia. The Anglo-French high command was thinking to a plan ("Catherine") to attack the Scandinavian peninsula, to stop the iron supply to the Germans and help Finland against Russia. Later anyway, remained only the idea of the invasion of Norway to stop the iron supply, anticipated by Germany.
    But another secret project was on way: the bombing of the Soviet oil wells in Caucaso, by 100 Anglo-French bombers taking off from Syria with the complicity of Turkey (that requested some guarantees that now we can omit). This bombing should be done in mid july 1940: the fall of France stopped everything. But this fact could have changed the history of WWII like we know it now.
    Anyway, coming back on Stalin guilt: your opinion.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,078

    Default Re: Stalin guilty for the war

    Quote Originally Posted by DVX View Post
    By his incredible mistake, the Nazi-Soviet pact, Stalin caused the war.
    In fact Hitler himself didn't want a world war, but was aware he was running the risk of world war with the aggression against the Poland. Hitler's politics tactic was to seize the right moment to strike, sometime fronting high risks, but ever calculated.
    Hitler actualy didn't want a war with Wester alles, but he definitelly planned a big Crusade to the East( See "Main campf").He just dreamed the West support him against Russia.
    Never Hitler was before aware of risking the war like when he attacked Poland.
    Yes, he was sure the British-French guaranties to Poles were phony. He hoped to capture the Poland without loud , just like he previously annexed the Austria and Chehoslovakia.
    But now, thanks to the Nazi-Soviet pact, he was free to run the maximum risk. With an hostile Russia, he never could run the risk of a great war. He couldn't do big moves.
    What make us to think after the Pact the Hitler got the "frendly" USSR?Othervise he didn't ordered to develop Barbarossa in mid 1940, right after fall of France.
    The Anglo-French were courting Stalin like Hitler, but they couldn't promise a free way in the east (Baltic States, Finland, Poland, Romenian Bucovina...) like Hitler cuold.
    But this price, at the moment, was good for Hitler, not for Stalin.
    The idea that Stalin wanted by this way to divert into the west or delay the nazi attack on Russia, doesn't hold: anybody knew that after the western powers, it would come the time of Russia. And was not a good idea to help the future enemy rather then the hated capitalist powers, if these last had to "divert or delay" the future enemy; but just for this.
    Well actualy it was serious lack of Stalin. In the USSR it was not a secret the close war with Germany. However , Stalin hoped the Western front should tied the Germany for a enough long time. But after the extremaly quick collapse of France and escape of British troops out of Europe- it was clear the Stalin has made a mistake.
    The sabotage of the war carried in France by the French Communist Party, following the Comintern orders, indicates that nor "diverting or delaying" was the point.
    And what was the point?
    Do you seriously think that the the members of Comintern ( most of whom were the Jews) burned by disare of sabotage against France fighting the Nazi Germany?
    Endeed it was the power that more persistly then anybody else care about resistence to Nazism. In Occuped France the Communist was the major anti-fascist power.
    So, accepting the Hitler's offers, in exchange of some territorial annexations, Stalin allowed Hitler to feel free at the shoulders, and starting (better: running the risk to start) the WWII.
    Well if to be formally correct. Neither Hitler , nor Stalin has started the big war- it was Britain who declared war on Germany after attack of Poland.Althought it was PHONY war , but though..
    This fact was almost launching the Allies against Russia. The Anglo-French high command was thinking to a plan ("Catherine") to attack the Scandinavian peninsula, to stop the iron supply to the Germans and help Finland against Russia. Later anyway, remained only the idea of the invasion of Norway to stop the iron supply, anticipated by Germany.
    But another secret project was on way: the bombing of the Soviet oil wells in Caucaso, by 100 Anglo-French bombers taking off from Syria with the complicity of Turkey (that requested some guarantees that now we can omit). This bombing should be done in mid july 1940: the fall of France stopped everything. But this fact could have changed the history of WWII like we know it now.
    Both the "help to finland" or the "bombing raids over Caucaus" were nothing but pure political phony proclamations.This meant declaration a war on USSR.It should mean ONLY one thing- the German-Soviet alliance.
    Do you seriously think the West was interested to provoke the USSR to join the Nazic Germany in war against Briatain/France?
    Hitler couldn't even dream about.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,414

    Default Re: Stalin guilty for the war

    I don't have time for a complete response now, and I surely do not buy the premise of this thread at all. Stalin was of course an enormous blood thirsty bastard tyrant. But he's hardly more culpable for WWII with his sometimes poor decision making than were the British, and especially, the French...

    But...

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    Hitler actualy didn't want a war with Wester alles, but he definitelly planned a big Crusade to the East( See "Main campf").He just dreamed the West support him against Russia.....
    Hitler DEFINITELY wanted revenge against the French for the "humiliation" 1918-1919 first and foremost--as evidenced by the use of the same rail car to sign the Armistice as was the venue for the WWI Armistice...
    Last edited by Nickdfresh; 09-24-2011 at 12:07 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,078

    Default Re: Stalin guilty for the war

    Quote Originally Posted by Nickdfresh View Post
    ... I surely do not buy the premise of this thread at all.
    Why not? it might be interesting even pure for logistic training
    Stalin was of course an enormous blood thirsty bastard tyrant. But he's hardly more culpable for WWII with his sometimes poor decision making than were the British, and especially, the French...
    ..and the Myssoliny. Who folowing his agression plans to take controll all over Middle Sea had involved the Germany into war in Africa.
    Hitler DEFINITELY wanted revenge against the French for the "humiliation" 1918-1919 first and foremost--as evidenced by the use of the same rail car to sign the Armistice as was the venue for the WWI Armistice...
    Yes , of course. I mind the anglo-saxon as "West" whom Hitler considered as the "brothers nation" to Germans. The revenge to France and Poland for Dancig was in agenda from most beginning of Hitlers ideology.But all those "lacks" is nothing compared to the great mission of Germany,as Hitler believed - "the saving word from bolshevism".That's why we know manies in west looked at him as at great leader for a long time.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    424

    Default Re: Stalin guilty for the war

    The more I think of it, the less I seek answers concerning the "needs" of Hitler. What he really wanted and needed was a bed, veggie food, a place to p... and sh... and some entertainment. All the other things are about stumbling in his own pit, without realizing it was a pit because of the early succes. Very obvious for the born lunatic he was.

    I guess everyone was guilty in waging war. Stalin in particular was guilty of crimes even before the war. His black mark on history is rather different from discussing timelines of world war II as he falls in the category "killer of its own population".
    Last edited by steben; 09-26-2011 at 07:56 AM.
    It is nice to have big heavy tanks, it is even nicer not to need them

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    604

    Default Re: Stalin guilty for the war

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post

    Well if to be formally correct. Neither Hitler , nor Stalin has started the big war- it was Britain who declared war on Germany after attack of Poland.Althought it was PHONY war , but though..
    Britain started the war? Oh my! Britain must have fired the first shot, then... I don't think so. I guess wars only start when someone "declared war". Tell that to Hitler, or Stalin, or Emperor Hirohito, or even Mussolini, none of whom bothered to declare war on anyone. Really, guys, get a grip on reality...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,288

    Default Re: Stalin guilty for the war

    Quote Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
    Britain started the war? Oh my! Britain must have fired the first shot, then... I don't think so. I guess wars only start when someone "declared war". Tell that to Hitler, or Stalin, or Emperor Hirohito, or even Mussolini, none of whom bothered to declare war on anyone. Really, guys, get a grip on reality...
    Well, Hitler did declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor.

    So it's clearly America's fault for taking that seriously and getting involved in the European war when everyone could see that Germany wasn't in the least aggressive towards any other nation.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,078

    Default Re: Stalin guilty for the war

    Quote Originally Posted by royal744 View Post
    Britain started the war?
    Why not?
    Not just started a full-scale European war in september of1939 but also involved into that war US later, if to look at events pure formally
    Oh my! Britain must have fired the first shot, then... I don't think so. I guess wars only start when someone "declared war". Tell that to Hitler, or Stalin, or Emperor Hirohito, or even Mussolini, none of whom bothered to declare war on anyone. Really, guys, get a grip on reality...
    Dude, the US with their "allies" waged a dozen of wars only in 20 centure , never even bordered a to "declare a war" to somebody.Did you once heard the US "declared war" to , say .. Vietnam or Iraq? Just send a bombers anywhere and - upps , we have a new warUsially it's very enough to declare the "possibility of use of MDW" by somebody. Even the Britain never care to declare war to Argentine for that damned islandsInstead both have declared the ..intentions.
    Last edited by Chevan; 09-18-2013 at 02:13 PM.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,078

    Default Re: Stalin guilty for the war

    Quote Originally Posted by Rising Sun* View Post
    Well, Hitler did declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor.
    They shouldn't take the Pearl Harbor seriously and entered the war agains Japane
    So it's clearly America's fault for taking that seriously and getting involved in the European war when everyone could see that Germany wasn't in the least aggressive towards any other nation.
    How , the Germans openly expressed the agressive to .."bolshevic" nation What seems makes him an sort of ally to western "democraties" in 1938 , didn't him?
    P.S. I'm too glad to see you again. All of you guys
    Last edited by Chevan; 09-19-2013 at 11:58 AM.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,414

    Default Re: Stalin guilty for the war

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    ...

    How , the Germans openly expressed the agressive to .."bolshevic" nation What seems makes him an sort of ally to western "democraties" in 1938 , didn't him?
    P.S. I'm too glad to see you again. All of you guys

    How aggressive was he when Stalin signed the Nonaggression Pact with him?

    Good to see you too...

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,288

    Default Re: Stalin guilty for the war

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    P.S. I'm too glad to see you again. All of you guys
    Glad to see you again, too, me old Russian mate.

    I suppose you've been busy working on the Lada while you've been away. Must take a lot of work to keep it on the road.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,288

    Default Re: Stalin guilty for the war

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevan View Post
    What seems makes him an sort of ally to western "democraties" in 1938 , didn't him?
    It's an unfortunate fact that many people in Western Europe and in English speaking countries were sympathetic to Hitler, not least because of his anti-communist position.

    If Hitler had attacked the USSR first (leaving aside the problem of Poland being in the way), I doubt that there would have been much or even any support for the Soviets from the West.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paramilitary wing of CAMRA
    Posts
    4,099

    Default Re: Stalin guilty for the war

    To some extent, yes - the French did spend a great deal of time rounding up communists, although Maurice Thorez had successfully legged it to Moscow (the French were convinced he was in Berlin).
    I have neither the time nor the inclination to differentiate between the incompetent and the merely unfortunate - Curtis E LeMay

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buffalo, New York
    Posts
    7,414

    Default Re: Stalin guilty for the war

    My long winded, asinine response Cont'd :

    Quote Originally Posted by pdf27
    Ultimately the problem is that they were trapped in a mindset which ran at the pace of 1918, and so couldn't adapt to the much faster rate of attack possible with mechanised transport. André Beaufre also makes a good point when interviewed for The World at War - the French had extensive experience of tanks in warfare and knew what they couldn't do. The Germans didn't, but knew what it was like to be on the receiving end. Throw in advances in machinery making tanks massively longer ranged and more reliable, and it's a recipe for disaster at the Command & Staff level.
    I concur with the "1918" comment -to a point. The very term 'Methodical Battle" implies a slow, localized and intricate unfolding of the battle, a notion that was obsolete in the age of reliable automotive transport as you correctly point out. However, there was some tangible effort to reform and modernize the French Army operationally and they were in the mist of creating their own "panzer divisions" with the DLM's when war broke out. Gamelin was a fool to an extent, but I think at least some of his thinking was sound. He did realize the inferiority of French methodologies and wanted to avoid a running mechanized battle for as long as possible because the Heer's tactical command and control was just vastly superior to the French Army's. There was of course the problem that French military aged males were outnumbered by German ones by a ratio of two-to-one and this was in no small way a specter looming over French military thinking. To your astute mechanized transport comment, I would add the French were somewhat hapless with other rapidly improving technologies such as their radio communications. Didn't Gamelin not even have one in his HQ for fear of SIGNIT OPSEC!? A factor that largely becomes moot in a rapidly unfolding battle where intelligence units have little time to transfer their findings to commanders. French commanders were often caught driving around looking for each other to deliver or receive written orders while the Heer commanders simply spoke by radio transmissions in real time. This communications disaster and disadvantage was in no way a small part of the French military collapse in the Sedan. Furthermore, while some French tanks did have radios, the batteries quickly went dead with no means to recharge them in the field, which seems rather insane! But, I think you're giving the Heer a bit too much credit here as well.

    There was no "blitzkrieg" prior to May of 1940. The Battle of Poland was largely and infantry and artillery duel with tanks playing mostly a support role with armored strategic penetration neither envisioned nor operationally performed. The Heer was simply better than the Poles in tactical C&C and the Polish Army never really properly mobilized nor recovered from the shock anyways. Sickle-cut was as much a localized tactical patchwork done by commanders on the ground like Rommel, Luck, and Guderian -all of whom realized the extent of the localized weakness and the collapse of the in the Sedan and the potential of complete strategic envelopment- as it was any preordained plan. This was of course in hand with the known lack of the French ability to recover after blowing her collective wad with the Dyle Plan. Despite this, the German General Staff often called for halts and consolidation of bridgeheads, corridors, etc. It was the German field commanders simply ignoring these calls that led to much of the success and the deep strategic penetration originally envisioned by Manstein and brought to fruition by Halder. Many of Gamelin's outdated assertions, however, were shared on the German side. Specifically, the Meuse crossing it was assumed would take about a week-and-a-half because of course one needs lots of artillery and heavy mortars to crush field fortifications and enforce a proper river crossing! That was the typical military dictum at the time. It was of course Guderian and Rommel (and to and extent Halder and Goring) that turned it on its head with their use of air power and tank cannon to neutralize the points of sometimes strong French resistance rather than tube artillery. And of course, on the rare occasions when the French were able to meet the Germans on somewhat equal terms, they were capable of tactical triumphs at places such as Stonne, The Gembloux Gap, and Hannut. The later two battles were successful engagements by the French despite Luftwaffe air superiority. They were conducted with I believe the French assumption that the Germans would be superior in tank vs. tank combat, but with the compensation for this of using the wooded areas to break up the panzer formations and using French armor to essentially act as tank destroyers. And at places like Stonne and Arras, German Landsers temporarily cracked just like their French counterparts did in the face of determined, but hopelessly unsupported, armor attacks. But the general consensus I take away in all the reading is that the French were supremely unlucky, and had just one thing gone their way, perhaps they could have recovered and severed the panzer corridor, or at least contained it. But of course the French didn’t exactly “create their luck” either. Had they done more with the incursion into the Saars, they may have gained invaluable operational experience and gained a more practical, realistic perspective of planning and what they could and could not do...

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    9,288

    Default Re: Stalin guilty for the war

    Might I, with some trepidation as not a close student of the European War, suggest that in WWII the Germans succeeded in their so-called blitzkreig to the west in the first stage of that War by the then novel process of primarily armoured and mechanized infantry warfare, rather than the much slower and tactically different infantry supported tank attacks in the closing stages of WWI which developed new tactics for the defeat of static and entrenched troops and artillery. Lesser minds in the English and French forces were, as usual, thinking about fighting the last war so far as tanks and entrenched positions were concerned, which produced the Maginot Line.

    The 'blitzkreig' wasn't something which quite fitted the notions of infantry and fort / redoubt based thinking which produced the various fortifications which were easily bypassed and or overrun by German armour.

    Nor was the use of armour in its own right as a spear rather than supporting the infantry as the spear.
    ..
    A rational army would run away.
    Montesquieu

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •