Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Was Stalin a negative or positive leader for the balance of power in europe in the 1930s?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by kennyr (U2647470) on Friday, 2nd December 2005
Without Stalin there would have only been 1 power in Europe (mainland) at the time.
And it gave Britain and France a focur point to try and push Germany east, perhaps hoping a war with the Soviet Union would lead both to exhaustion.
What does everyone think? -
Message 2
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Friday, 2nd December 2005
I don't think Hitler needed GB and France to 'push' him East. He was more than commited to pushing East himself.
More importantly, in my eyes, without Stalin, post war, the victors could have had some oppertunity to build a co-operative, 'non-aggressive peace', without the suspicions and land grabbing that followed on after the end of Nazi Germany. Countries could have enjoyed liberation and recuperated instead of swapping one tyrant for another.
It speaks volumes that Stalin imprisoned and murdered his own troops who had been captured on the battlefield or sent to work in Germay as slave labour, fearig they had become corrupted by the bourgeois West. Even after winning WW2, the bloodiest years on earth, Stalin couldn't bring himself to stop the bloodshed against his own people or German POW's. -
Message 3
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 2nd December 2005
All these talks about the WWII are so 'innocently naive' that it is well understandable why I become so cynical.
The WWII like the first were more or less pre-written theatrical pieces if not to the last detail then to the detail of their acts (act 1 start war, act 2 involve as many as possible). To provide you with an example, the english officials knew how the war would end by 1941 - that is for certain so I say that they knew it right from the beggining.
Under 'normal' (now what is normal that is another case) circumstances, I mean the circumstances that you think (e.g. two countries on war blah blah national antagonism blah blah)... Germany would not have been able to find the money to built that war machine it did in 10 years. Simple project management knowledge says that an accelerated development involved 2fold or 5fold or 10fold the expenses that the "financially bunkrupt Germany of the mid-war era" did not have!!! Go search were they found the money.
Under 'normal' circumstances even if Germany attacked that sneaky way France making the round from Belgium there was no practical explanation for the fall of France, the only thing that the French had to do was to order a nice simple march till Berlin, burn Berlin and destory once for all Germany then go back and rebuild Paris (that would had obviously been destroyed by the Nazis). In 1940 the French army was by far superior than the German in all aspects (and stop that myth of quality german weapons, these came only too late in 1944!), still the French today are wondering why they surrendered - perhaps because somebody had invested in the German war machine so if the French 'solved' the problem alone that would mean that the investment would collapse.
Under 'normal' conditions there is no practical explanation for the German attack in Russia other than to bring an end to the war sooner. Explanations of the style 'liebersraum' or how else it is in German are ridiculous. None attacks even in blietskrieg Russia (Napoleon did but then same for him, somebody else funded his campaign!).
I believe France was capable alone even if Germans reached Paris and destroyed it - normally highly unprobable, they would have lost all of their country and leadership!), England was capable alone, Russia was capable alone of beating anyone in the long run, USA the same as Russia...
... what is the question? Is the question 'was it good that Stalin good involved so that England and USA lost less soldiers? Yes of course, it is always better when others do the hard work, English know that very well (not diminuishing the sacrifice of 1000s of English men - usually Northern English! - but their armies along with the USA ones got involved only after the collapse of most of the german army). It is the smartest strategy.
What I think is that till 1930-1933 even a country like Chechoslovakia or Polish cavalry could go in and sweep Germany around destoying any military indusdtries but nobody felt at that time that it would be a good thing to make Germany respect the treaties that forced it to have no army. Interesting e? Do you believe that none knew what was going on? Think it twice and as many times you want and if oyu came up with better explanations I am willing to hear. -
Message 4
Posted by Slimdaddy101 (U2553470) on Friday, 2nd December 2005
"English know that very well (not diminuishing the sacrifice of 1000s of English men - usually Northern English!"
Do you mean Scottish!?! -
Message 5
Posted by OUNUPA (U2078829) on Saturday, 3rd December 2005
Take the case when such 'leaders' from so-called nations of 'winners' in WWII as Lukashenko
from Belarus who invents his 'own laws'(L.-Stalin's
'decrets') which are
supposed to help him in keeping his personal
power on top in Belarus for
account the lives of real citizens and their
human rights.
From now,for example, anyone from Belarus and not
only from there,who would try to
type a word against him at Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ History Board or
somewhere else, has his
chance to be put under Luka's 'own jurisdiction'
....
Even me -a citizen of Ukraine....if I cross the
B. border theoretically can 'deserve' a couple of
years of imprisonment from his own 'court'.
Lukashenko is preparing for the
future 'presidential elections' in 2006.
Now Belorussian KGBers have claimed that all who
railing against Bat'ka
are being terrorists .....it's not surprisingly
really ...if we take into account Putin's own
tricks to cover his actions in Chechnya ....
Therefore the Belorusian KGBers want to obtain
the right to shoot citizens on spot.. if events
go in a wrong way of 'their original plan the
cunducting of elections'....
I think the question is who are these to carry
out the 'Stalin's order?
Although
in R. there are many 'assistants' who have been
brought in action such sort of orders....and got
away with it with impunity... -
Message 6
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Saturday, 3rd December 2005
"English know that very well (not diminuishing the sacrifice of 1000s of English men - usually Northern English!"
Do you mean Scottish!?!Β
Nikolaos has this knowledge that the British policy in war is to use non-English personnel first, then , if they have to let some Englishmen fight, to save those from the south of England by using men from the northern counties. He has mentioned this before. I am not sure where he gets his facts from. It is best just to ognor emost of his ramblings. -
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 3rd December 2005
This notion, generic it may be, it is true. But why is that strange to you? To provide you with an example, you may study the lists of the english soldiers that died in the dig-war (or how was that thing called) of the WWI.
It is no strange that English did that, English had been always exceptional in politics having been the worthy inheritors of the empires of Byzantium and Rome. Romans did that (what? you think that Romans fought? Even before their conquests in the east, when they were still in Italy most Roman armies were non-Romans, usually these were ex-enemies turned in a kind of serfs or in other times allies allured from the 'spoils of war'). The Byzantines did that (big time!!! employing Bulgarians to fight Bulgarians, Arabs to fight Arabs and Turks to fight Turks!!!).
English had done that all the time and that is what made them a world power. That is a thing to be proud of. That does not mean that English were unworthy in war, nobody said that, but then it is not the worthy in war that becomes a power but the one who has better politics and diplomacy. Imagine that England never lost in these grounds and only became second to USA due to inherent points (space, ressources and ) - again the way they did it was fantastic, still in an implicit manner they swing their way around.
Now, about the southern-northern English the answer is easy. Who is sent in the front line? Of course the working class - that happens in all the countries. In England, the 'bourgeoisie' (though I do not like these descriptions) is usually concentrated in the southern parts and the working class in the northern that is why most dead soldiers happened to be from the north (southerners were on average more educated and thus were prompt to take more administrative positions, northerners tended to end up in the front line).
I do not think there is anything strange in the above remark or in the remark that England utilised succesfully whatever force it could 'telecommand', allies, enemies, guerrilas around the world etc. Imagine what England could do by sending its full forces here and there - in a matter of few decades, its power would have faded away. -
Message 8
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 3rd December 2005
"English know that very well (not diminuishing the sacrifice of 1000s of English men - usually Northern English!"
Do you mean Scottish!?!Β
No, I meand northern English.
Tony G above remembered one quote of mine (said in a joking manner but then seriously it is not away from the truth).
English always employed their armies in the following fashion:
They would send against one of their enemies:
1)an enemy of their enemies that could be also their own enemy
2) an ally (allies and enemies could change from one year to the other)
3) indians, africans, you know... the commonwealth
4) New Zealanders
5) Australians
6) Canadians
7) Scottish
8) Welsh
9) Northern English
10) Southern English (you know... officers, administratives, quartermasters, engineers etc.)
ok... it goes without saying that the above list is excessive irony but then it is not at all far from reality... how else was supposed England to rule the world? -
Message 9
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 3rd December 2005
For a better description of the above, and less sentimentaly charged - I know many of us have lost grandparents in these wars - I suggest the 'Art of War' by Sun Tzu: there he analysis nicely how war is done effectively and power is achieved over the enemy (Chinese kingdoms passed in 500-300 BC what Europe passed in the around the same period (300-30 BC) and then again in 1750-1945 AD).
-
Message 10
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 4th December 2005
"English know that very well (not diminuishing the sacrifice of 1000s of English men - usually Northern English!"
Do you mean Scottish!?!Β
No, I meand northern English.
Tony G above remembered one quote of mine (said in a joking manner but then seriously it is not away from the truth).
English always employed their armies in the following fashion:
They would send against one of their enemies:
1)an enemy of their enemies that could be also their own enemy
2) an ally (allies and enemies could change from one year to the other)
3) indians, africans, you know... the commonwealth
4) New Zealanders
5) Australians
6) Canadians
7) Scottish
8) Welsh
9) Northern English
10) Southern English (you know... officers, administratives, quartermasters, engineers etc.)
ok... it goes without saying that the above list is excessive irony but then it is not at all far from reality... how else was supposed England to rule the world?Β
Nikolaos, Thank you for explaining. However, even if you are correct in your analysis of WW1 casualties, I very much get the feeling you are presenting selective demographic statistics as evidence of definite political policy. I have not studied the WW1 casualty lists but I would be very interested to know how you arrived at the conclusion you have. Was it done by simple reference to which regiment the soldiers were in, or was it by home address of each soldier killed?
Even if you are correct (which I doubt) WW1 casualty lists do not provide evidence of what happened during previous or later conflicts. Yes, armies find best recruiting in areas of relative social deprivation, this does not mean that British policy is to protect the southern English by expending the lives of men from other areas first. I think this is one conspiracy theory too far. When conscription was introduced, it affected all men who were old enough to bear arms irrespective of geographical location.
Does your statistical analysis take into account, for example, that the southern towns of England have traditionally been rich recruiting areas for the Royal Navy? Given the same percentage of men in the services across the UK, the mere fact that many from the coastal towns of the south joined the navy obviously means there would be fewer available to join the army. I suspect that even you cannot come up with a conspiracy theory to explain why the British government did not send the sailors of the Royal Navy into the trenches. On seconds thoughts, you probably can as this seems to be your speciality.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.