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.
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 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…
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…
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.
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”.
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. 
:rolleyes:
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 war:)Usially 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 islands:)Instead both have declared the …intentions.
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:)
How aggressive was he when Stalin signed the Nonaggression Pact with him?
Good to see you too…
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.
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.
I suppose Stalin was TOO nonagressive , even the PASSIVE that time. But why he should be agressive if everybody in Europe wanted the Peace and Love
He didn’t want to look the boor here:)
Good to see you too…
God , mate, the 6700 your posts here. You should be a general here:)I vote…
and not least of his anti-semitism.Hitler never hided the fact he wanna draw the blood the Soviet jewry.
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.
I’m sure if even Hitler attacked it, the Poland should repat the role of Chehoslovakia - not a big sacrifice for a great role - the crusade to the east.
Can do nothing- my heart belong to lada:)Never breaks actually- the construction seems too primitive to been broken anything.Shame to tell you, but i’ve bought the anothe car- Hundai 
And presented it to my misys…
That’s a major understatement - the French spent most of the Phony War dreaming up ways to invade Russia. That’s why Weygand was in Syria before being recalled to France after Dunkirk - he was working on an invasion of the Baku oilfields launched from there.
I’ve been reading a lot about the Fall of France recently (for something I’m writing), and the more I read the more I come to the conclusion that the French had the numbers, the kit and to some extent the right tactics and strategy, but their officer corps was full of clowns and their politicians even worse. Given decent French leadership, the German invasion of France would probably have been a disaster to rank with Cannae or Teutoburger Wald. Indeed, IMO the only person to screw up worse than Gamelin was Leopold III…
Well, there is a bit of a precedent for that with Napoleon. Not that that turned out too well.
Doesn’t the French interest in invading Russia in WWII support my view that the West was hostile to Russia or, more accurately, to the USSR, as part of the general Western hostility to communism?
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).
Good ol’ Neville, The Appeaser…
There is an interesting revisionist theory I read a few years back that states basically that Chamberlain wasn’t as weak as portrayed and knew war with Germany was only a matter of time. His focus wasn’t so much as preventing war as delaying it. The delay allowed the RAF to bring more Spitfires online and allowed a tiny British Army some room for expansion. Chamberlain may have saved Britain every bit as much as Winston did…
God , mate, the 6700 your posts here. You should be a general here:)I vote…
I’m holding out for Minister of Defense! I want to be a civilian… :mrgreen:
A Hyundai!?? :mrgreen: They’re great cars (now)… :mrgreen: