Most modern historians have reversed course on thinking the Soviet invasion was a mistake. It was almost perfectly timed. Britain and France were whipped, and the Americans were in no position to attack. I mean, there was a reason that 1941-1943 was so quiet on the western front. The soviets had purged their armies of all leadership and were in miserable disarray - the utter failure of the red army in Finland proved this point perfectly. Germany invaded and crushed the Soviets with impunity. But the German high command had no idea the insane (and I mean just horrifically insane) lengths the Soviet leadership was willing to go to hold out. Yeah, the soviet winter was, once again, a great ally for the russians... but the tyrannical resistance was far more important, and shocking. I'm shaking my head here as I write this. The soviets absorbed and unbelievable slaughter, but their government just refused to let the nation capitulate - at any cost. Not sure, in hindsight, that I'd call anyone a winner given the rampant destruction.
41-43 was quiet because Hitler did not commit to total warfare. Many military historians actually consider that his biggest mistake. But yes, it's also hard to call it a mistake to invade Russia when Eastern Europe was Hitler's primary goal from the beginning and there is no way, no matter what happened in the war, that Germany and Russia weren't going to war with each other eventually. Be it Stalin or Hitler, one was going to attack the other at some point. Hitler took his shot. As to underestimating Russian leadership's resolve, I would argue that had Hitler's mind and health not deteriorated the way it did, the war could have gone differently. By most accounts, Hitler had deteriorated to an awful state by D-Day and was spending most of his day sleeping, wasn't interested in negative reports and was extremely paranoid. It's very possible that had Hitler listened to his advisers at the time and brokered peace with England and America he could have defeated the Russians.
War for freedom? We allied with a tyrant which set the stage for a 50 year Cold War. It might be that we were lucky 2 despots couldn't coexist with only a piece of paper.
I'm just wondering how WW2 could be considered righteous when Stalin was as bloodthirsty as Hitler. Some historians consider the Cold War as a continuation of WW2. We bailed out our friends and allies, but who knows if historians a hundred plus years later will still feel that we were righteous.
I didn't question whether it was a "mistake" for Hitler to invade Russia. I just try to point out that Russia played a substantial part of Hitler's downfall and it was the turning point of WWII. As to who won the war, this is a question for a 6th grader, and I wasn't really serious by saying USSR won the war. But that doesn't stop us from asking how much credit should be given to each major players in the war. At least I will say no country single-handedly won that war.
No problem. A comment on Starlin's "tyrannical resolve" to hold out. Starlin was very close abandoning Moscow. I think that resolve was strengthened gradually by the progress of the war. Also it is not surprising given Russian's military tradition and its expansionism. I don't think we should call Russian's resolve to keep territory integrity "tyrannical" for the same reason we wouldn't say the British was tyrannical at all cost or China for that matter to fight the invaders out.
I'm sorry, I was going to let your first few posts slide because i'm just browsing/supposed to be a the library right now. I have to honestly ask where the **** you are getting your information? Have you studied this material before? Every one of your posts in this thread are filled with misinformation. The cherry on top is your assertion that this was a righteous war. This is so misguided that it is on par with North Korean in-house propaganda. I am genuinely interested in how you came about the information you have spouted forth as fact in this thread.
I would ask you how you think World War II wasn't a righteous war. The United States was attacked, fought back, and defeated a nation that was a massive threat to its own interests and was bloody insane. I don't see anything wrong with this.
How are you defining righteous? Was American participation justifiable? Yes Did America participate out of a outraged sense of justice or morality? Absolutely not. Justtxyank is painting a picture of the contemporary United States as a moral force triumphing over the armies of evil men. This suggestion is misguided and out of touch with reality
Hitler would have had to literally slaughter every Russian man and woman left to have successfully occupied Russia. Russians are used to death and misery and hardship, look at what Stalin did to us and most of us still worship at his alter. I guarantee you that long term, even without the Allies, Russia would have come out on top. People who are not intimately familiar with the Russian mind and the country's history would not understand this point. It may have taken 50 million Russian lives, but the outcome was never in doubt.
I don't think there ever has been a war with absolute moral clarity but WWII compared with the other wars of the 20th and the first part of this century is less morally ambiguous.
Against the Japanese? Heck yeah. Against the Germans, no, and it's well-documented that until the discovery of the Holocaust, many Americans were confused as to just what they were doing over there. However, as it was fully justifiable due to the German declaration of war, I don't see why it's necessary for there to be an outraged sense of justice in order for it be a good war.
Okay, I think I understand what you are saying. My only effort here is to point out that things are not nearly as simple as many people portray them. Many of the situations that justtxyanks and others characterize as surprising, casual or the result of luck or chance were mind-numbingly predictable and appropriate with the aid of what we know now. Hitler didn't invade Russia on a whim and no part of the United States participation in the war came about without careful socio-political framework. I certainly did not know much about this until I spent several years studying the subject in college. I do not blame him or others for not knowing, I just dislike the perpetuation of falsehoods leading to even more misguided conclusions. Did the USA win the Second World War? absolutely. The New Deal had done little to bring the US out of the Depression and it took the Second World War to bring America to the world's stage. While America was able to build up its industrial power in an exponential manner, other world powers' infrastructure were being devastated along with their populations. Following the war, America entered a booming economic period. The military industrial complex was created to maintain this boom. A consumer culture was slowly perfected - people that had gone so long without finally were able to consume. Ideas about consumption changed and coupled with the rise of credit (you would be astounded how different the concept of credit was not even 70 years ago) and newly created desires, an economic force previously unfamiliar to the world was created. The Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of our allies' infrastructure played a tremendous role to America's rise to power. Not only was money lent for reconstruction, AMERICAN CULTURE was exported to these countries simultaneously. Many of the loans handed out came with the requirement of consuming and purchasing of American goods only. This set the stage for the Western transformation that we observe in the 20th century, with the USA dominating socially, politically, economically and culturally. Two results of WW2, the creation of the military industrial complex and exportation of American culture, were two key factors in the American victory in the Cold War. Internally, the USSR had plenty of problems; paired with these two external components, the USSR was doomed. They could not sustain the pace of military buildup nor fight American cultural power. So we see that it was World War II that created the great America of the 20th century and the advantages we carry into the 21st. Did the USA do most of the heavy lifting (fighting) during WWII? It depends on what region, problem and situation you are talking about. Russia's contributions were tremendous; the other European powers should not be underestimated. But you can see how any argument or discussion like this, without a specific set of parameters to work within, can turn into an argument about ... anything.
you are blurring the lines between the concept of : good righteous appropriate morally justifiable These are not all the same thing.
LOL! thanks for supporting my point. Again, people who do not understand the Russian mindset simply dont appreciate the lengths Russia would have gone to purge every last inch of the motherland from German soldiers. It may have taken 20 Russian soldiers for every German one, but eventually the Soviet forces would have reached Berlin, burned down every last building that was still standing, slaughtered every last German adult male (but probably not before raping their women in front of them for dramatic effect), and enslaved the rest of the population until reparations were exacted. Russians are really, really sore winners.
