Just recent ones?Lets face it most of the the recent major military victories came about by attacking the opposition before declaring a war
I'm not so sure. Hitler was insane enough to start war with almost entire world. If no Hitler, there maybe could be some local-scale war in Europe, but most likely no WW2.Doppleganger said:There would have been another world war after WW1, Hitler or no Hitler. Hitler was a sign of the times, not a cause of it.
Right, Stalin was more pragmatic. If there was no Hitler and Germany with expansion politics, Stalin alone would not launch attack on Western world. Even Winter War was carried out in moment, when there were no significant threats to Finland become wide supported by western democracies since those were in war with Hitler and they did not need another enemy. If there was no war in West, although in form of `phony war`, Stalin most likely wouldn't be decided to attack Finland. He need a appropriate moment do it. And such moment could not occure if there was no Hitler.Doppleganger said:If Hitler hadn't been around there was still Josef Stalin to contend with.
Agree.Doppleganger said:Hitler, in a sense, was born in the wrong time. Had he been born in 300BC, 400AD or 1200AD, we'd be reading about the 'great conquerer' Adolf Hitler in our history books, instead of the inhuman monster he is known as today. He did nothing worse than what his predecessors did - the main difference was the scale.
I think war in Pacific could happen, but without European Allies and theatre of war the Pacific war could be just large-scale local war, not World War. Something like Folklend War, just in bigger scale.perseus said:Perhaps the European war, what about the Pacific theatre? It has been said that either would have happened without the other.
There would have been another world war after WW1, Hitler or no Hitler. Hitler was a sign of the times, not a cause of it.
If Hitler hadn't been around there was still Josef Stalin to contend with.
I watched this movie called Europa Europa and about half way through the movie, the nazis invaded Russia, in a scene where the nazis were pursuing a large group of Russians, the Jews were the only ones that kept running from the nazis towards Russian troops, everybody else actually preferred to face Hitler as opposed to Stalin. I thought that was an intriguing part of the movie, I wonder if that was truly the sentiment of many people that were in these border regions?
Plenty of Ukranians thought he was ok (they hated Stalin) for a while until the SS started to cut loose behind the front lines.
The Vichy French were quite helpful to Hitler in collecting Jews to send to the Death camps.
Yeah, hard to tell which country got screwed harder in WWII, Poland or Ukraine.
There would have been another world war after WW1, Hitler or no Hitler. Hitler was a sign of the times, not a cause of it.
If Hitler hadn't been around there was still Josef Stalin to contend with.
Hitler, in a sense, was born in the wrong time. Had he been born in 300BC, 400AD or 1200AD, we'd be reading about the 'great conquerer' Adolf Hitler in our history books, instead of the inhuman monster he is known as today. He did nothing worse than what his predecessors did - the main difference was the scale.
I watched this movie called Europa Europa and about half way through the movie, the nazis invaded Russia, in a scene where the nazis were pursuing a large group of Russians, the Jews were the only ones that kept running from the nazis towards Russian troops, everybody else actually preferred to face Hitler as opposed to Stalin. I thought that was an intriguing part of the movie, I wonder if that was truly the sentiment of many people that were in these border regions?
What problems did Stalin have internally that would keep him busy for decades? If he indeed had these problems, it did not stop him installing puppet Communist regimes in half of Europe after WW2. If it wasn't for Nazi Germany, the whole of Europe would have turned communist in no more than 10 years. Stalin was preparing for a major war of conquest and the Red Army was undergoing a massive reorganization and rearmament when Hitler struck in June 1941.I'm not so sure a World War would have taken place without Hitler. You say that the world had Joseph Stalin to deal with. But this isn't true. Stalin had enough problems in the Soviet Union to keep him busy for decades.
Morality was not different but what was deemed acceptable in war certainly was. Genghis Khan put millions of innocent people to the sword, including razing entire cities. The figure is as high as 60 million people, which is far more than Hitler ever killed. Yet is Genghis Khan demonized as an inhuman monster?As for Hitler being born in the wrong time; whatever time you want to insert him he would be judged the same. World leaders in the later Greek and the Roman world would be thought of in terms of shame for the whole-sale slaughter of innocents. That also holds true for the later Medieval world. The only thing that changes with time is the technology. Human beings were just as sophisticated in these earlier times. To think that there morality was different doesn't make too much sense.
What problems did Stalin have internally that would keep him busy for decades? If he indeed had these problems, it did not stop him installing puppet Communist regimes in half of Europe after WW2. If it wasn't for Nazi Germany, the whole of Europe would have turned communist in no more than 10 years. Stalin was preparing for a major war of conquest and the Red Army was undergoing a massive reorganization and rearmament when Hitler struck in June 1941.
Morality was not different but what was deemed acceptable in war certainly was. Genghis Khan put millions of innocent people to the sword, including razing entire cities. The figure is as high as 60 million people, which is far more than Hitler ever killed. Yet is Genghis Khan demonized as an inhuman monster?
Hardly.
You still haven't cleared up why you think Stalin had enough problems internally to keep him busy for decades. And why don't you think Stalin wasn't planning a war of conquest. There hasn't been a leader of a large powerful empire yet that didn't desire or plan for conquest - it's human nature. Plus there's more enough evidence to suggest that Stalin was no more content to let Nazi Germany prosper than Hitler was the other way. Finally it's pretty much endemic in Bolshevik doctrine that it requires to be exported to the people, wherever they are and whether they want it or not.Joseph Stalin set up puppet Goverments in a third of Europe because that idiot Adolph Hitler decided to bang heads with him. He actually started a war with Russia while still fighting England. He also started a war with someone bigger than himself. Not only bigger but with better Armour and an infinate supply of soldiers. By the way, if you are saying Stalin was planing some sort of war of conquest on the rest of Europe----maybe it's time for you to take your medication.
You still haven't cleared up why you think Stalin had enough problems internally to keep him busy for decades. And why don't you think Stalin wasn't planning a war of conquest. There hasn't been a leader of a large powerful empire yet that didn't desire or plan for conquest - it's human nature. Plus there's more enough evidence to suggest that Stalin was no more content to let Nazi Germany prosper than Hitler was the other way. Finally it's pretty much endemic in Bolshevik doctrine that it requires to be exported to the people, wherever they are and whether they want it or not.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v19/v19n6p40_Michaels.html
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.