|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 30, 2022 10:17:53 GMT
qr.ae/pvuXQlIt's a take on someone in Quora. He says that Stalin ignored Allied warnings about German invasion during WW2 so that Europe could become weak and he could conquer it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jul 30, 2022 12:54:56 GMT
qr.ae/pvuXQlIt's a take on someone in Quora. He says that Stalin ignored Allied warnings about German invasion during WW2 so that Europe could become weak and he could conquer it. I think that's entirely possible. I don't think that was the way it happened, but I definitely think that he drew out the war longer than it needed to be so that the eurpoean powers would not be as strong. |
|
|
|
Post by 𝘛𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘴𝘬𝘺 on Jul 30, 2022 17:53:59 GMT
qr.ae/pvuXQlIt's a take on someone in Quora. He says that Stalin ignored Allied warnings about German invasion during WW2 so that Europe could become weak and he could conquer it. I don't believe that the USSR in the end of the 30'ies had any ambition for expansation. Stalin's direction was the Revolution in one Country (in opposition to Trotzky's continous revolution) - but he knew from the Day Hitler got to power, that germany will attack the USSR - this was the unic reason, why the NSDAP got almost a third of all votes in 1932. Just having more time to be prepared, was the reason, why Saltin signed the Rippentrop tract with the biggest enemy. Ignoring the warnings gave more time and it saved all expenses in official defense efforts. Russia was not unprepared, but the germans undervalued the russian troops and material up to 10 times - not only the german erros caused their fail - they never had a piece of a chance - and Germany started the Barbarossa with already used arms. With the entrance of the USA in Jan 42 the war was lost definitely. IIRC produced the CCCP more tanks, just in 1942, than the germans had ever had - untill today ? . |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jul 30, 2022 18:49:53 GMT
qr.ae/pvuXQlIt's a take on someone in Quora. He says that Stalin ignored Allied warnings about German invasion during WW2 so that Europe could become weak and he could conquer it. I don't believe that the USSR in the end of the 30'ies had any ambition for expansation. Stalin's direction was the Revolution in one Country (in opposition to Trotzky's continous revolution) But we do know that he did want expansion (hence the spheres of influence in Molotov-Ribbentrop). You can't argue it was solely about buffer space, because there was no need for that in Finland. Furthermore, the reason for expansion was not to expand communism - that would be far too idealistic for a pragmatist like Stalin. Rather, it was to strengthen the growing USSR. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Jul 30, 2022 19:01:34 GMT
I don't believe that the USSR in the end of the 30'ies had any ambition for expansation. Stalin's direction was the Revolution in one Country (in opposition to Trotzky's continous revolution) But we do know that he did want expansion (hence the spheres of influence in Molotov-Ribbentrop). You can't argue it was solely about buffer space, because there was no need for that in Finland. Furthermore, the reason for expansion was not to expand communism - that would be far too idealistic for a pragmatist like Stalin. Rather, it was to strengthen the growing USSR. Finland did have a fascist minded far-right coup d'etat attempt 7 years earlier though. Although an invasion from Finland was probably highly unlikely. |
|
|
|
Post by 𝘛𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘴𝘬𝘺 on Jul 30, 2022 19:25:00 GMT
But we do know that he did want expansion (hence the spheres of influence in Molotov-Ribbentrop). You can't argue it was solely about buffer space, because there was no need for that in Finland. Furthermore, the reason for expansion was not to expand communism - that would be far too idealistic for a pragmatist like Stalin. Rather, it was to strengthen the growing USSR. But the Finnish civil war (anti communism) was just/really? finished, and especial Finnland was part of the Molotov pact - the finnish Anti-Communism powers were a real fear for the CCCP. Just the devastating bad performance of the red army preserved 90% of Finnland as (more ore less) independent. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Jul 30, 2022 19:52:31 GMT
But we do know that he did want expansion (hence the spheres of influence in Molotov-Ribbentrop). You can't argue it was solely about buffer space, because there was no need for that in Finland. Furthermore, the reason for expansion was not to expand communism - that would be far too idealistic for a pragmatist like Stalin. Rather, it was to strengthen the growing USSR. But the Finnish civil war (anti communism) was just/really? finished, and especial Finnland was part of the Molotov pact - the finnish Anti-Communism powers were a real fear for the CCCP. Just the devastating bad performance of the red army preserved 90% of Finnland as (more ore less) independent. After the kidnapping of the former president and the rebellion of Mäntsälä by the Lapua movement the moderate right did take distance to them. On the other hand had the coup d'etat been successful and the goals of the Lapuans achieved, Finland would have likely become the Italy of the north. And although they failed they were able to pass the communist laws and a "shirt law", which they hilariously broke as probably the only ones. Had German influence grown, the USSR would have really had a reason to worry about Leningrad. But to the original topic, I believe the Quora poster is right and that Stalin wanted to weaken Europe, if not for expansion of his empire, atleast for the expansion of his influence. |
|
|
|
Post by 𝘛𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘴𝘬𝘺 on Jul 30, 2022 20:44:26 GMT
[...] But to the original topic, I believe the Quora poster is right and that Stalin wanted to weaken Europe, if not for expansion of his empire, at least for the expansion of his influence. I am with you, That a non-friend-country becomes weaker, is always positive as it rises your relative position without any effort. So rising influence is common intention of every country. My point was the militaric expansation : - Poland and Finnland the USSR got under the cover of the germans - an expediton on their own, I believe, was not realizable in the early 40'ies - and even the Winter War with Finnland had heavy diplomatic consequences. I believe Stalin did expect the attack from the first day. But at least he prepared - this is not dumb, for this the Quora post is right. |
|
|
|
Post by zink on Jul 30, 2022 21:51:37 GMT
what do I think?
I think a lot about tacos
and what goes on said tacos
mmmm....
|
|
|
|
Post by 𝘛𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘴𝘬𝘺 on Jul 30, 2022 22:05:07 GMT
what do I think? I think a lot about tacos and what goes on said tacos mmmm.... Now, I think about tacos, too - hmmmm |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Jul 31, 2022 11:06:52 GMT
I've never expected such an angle of Stalin. I took it for granted that he was not the best choice (Read worst) to lead the war.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Jul 31, 2022 11:38:05 GMT
I've never expected such an angle of Stalin. I took it for granted that he was not the best choice (Read worst) to lead the war. Stalin was a genius. I might even say he was one of the greatest if not the greatest dictator ever. With that I mean ability to gain and keep power. |
|
|
|
Post by 𝘛𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘴𝘬𝘺 on Jul 31, 2022 17:16:26 GMT
I've never expected such an angle of Stalin. I took it for granted that he was not the best choice (Read worst) to lead the war. Stalin was a genius. I might even say he was one of the greatest if not the greatest dictator ever. With that I mean ability to gain and keep power. I am with John Marston and think Stalin was the worst what can happen for russia. For every aspect. To call him a genius for poisoning the Nr2 and then murdering the Nr1 Lenin - this is much to thin. You will find dozents of more inteligent complots in history. |
|
|
|
Post by John Marston on Sept 11, 2022 7:18:19 GMT
I've never expected such an angle of Stalin. I took it for granted that he was not the best choice (Read worst) to lead the war. Stalin was a genius. I might even say he was one of the greatest if not the greatest dictator ever. With that I mean ability to gain and keep power. While I agree with 𝘛𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘴𝘬𝘺, I think that at least during the peak stages of war, somehow it felt that Stalin was the right man for his job at least at the peak of the war. His ruthlessness was a major reason Soviet resistance didn't collapse, although there were still a lot of unnecessary killings and purges (before the war), especially if he knew that the Nazis would attack. |
|
