Hmmm...quiet right, quiet right indeed. Im not saying hitler wasnt a horrible person but he did raise a country of peasents into a formidable fighting force. The soviets just took their peasents to the slaughter. and lets not for get the statics hitler killed roughly 4 million of his people and stalin up nearward 15-17 million. so who was the real monster. i wish we would have done what the greatest general of ww2 (patton) wanted to do, take out the commie bastard while we were over there. we had the manpower and knowledge to do it. think of all the events that would have been stopped....korea....vietnam.....cuban missle crisis......the hungray invasion by the commies......it would have all been prevented

At 6/1/05 07:10 PM, chaos999 wrote: i wish we would have done what the greatest general of ww2 (patton) wanted to do, take out the commie bastard while we were over there. we had the manpower and knowledge to do it. think of all the events that would have been stopped....korea....vietnam.....cuban missle crisis......the hungray invasion by the commies......it would have all been prevented

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. First of all, Patton was not by any means a great general. He was a reckless glory-hungry madman. His idea to take the Wehrmacht and keep going east is just one example of his mania.

Second, the Soviet Union would have kicked America's ass, unless the Americans were willing to do some serious nuclear strikes. Other than that, the Red Army was in almost every way superior to the other Allied armies in Europe. It's ironic that Hitler invaded Russia because he thought it was backwards, and yet the invasion propelled it into being a super-power. If war broke between the Soviets and the west, it would have been the Soviets who kept going.

At 6/1/05 06:45 PM, Jerconjake wrote: You mean like the SA? They existed before Hitler came around, and they already had

their ideals set.

Not like the SA really. They were the nazistic Sturmabteilung (Storm Division/Departement) who created riots and stood as guards outside the nazi-meetings.

Those I'm talking about was independent of a nazi's belief.

There was alot of firms which didn't play a particular role in the war but acctually was there. I don't know really, there were so many firms and underground movements. Alot

It would be a pleasure! I'm sure it will be a most fruitful undertaking.

Awesome! d^_^b

It's strange to me how everyone fixates on Hitler being the most evil person who ever lived, but I believe that Stalin was.

I don't really know who I would consider as most evil as I wouldn't say that you are more evil just because you killed more people...

Hitler took a country that was in shambles and made it something great, while Stalin took a country that was in shambles and made it considerably worse.

Yeah but people who live in Russia now think that Stalin made a good job when he built everything up, even though they were aware of the loss of millions of people.

There's so many awful things to tell, but I'll let you begin.

I would acctually like you to begin. I don't know where to begin anyway so. It would probably just become something completely random as when I started to talk about Japan.

But as a little push, I could go with a little scene from the Russians in the war.
I do unfourtainly not remember exacctly where or when it was... but here it goes anyway:

A Sovjet army was trapped in a city surrounded by Germans. They were outnumbered and their report to their commanders lead:

"We are outnumbered and we don't have any food. Please, we need help..."

The message they got back:

"Fight and you won't feel the hunger".

The reply on that:

"We can't fight, we don't have any ammunition".

The last message between them:

"The motherland will always remember you".

At 6/1/05 06:45 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Hitler took a country that was in shambles and made it something great, while Stalin took a country that was in shambles and made it considerably worse. There's so many awful things to tell, but I'll let you begin.

I think you have it all backwards. Look at the Versailles treaty. It really did almost nothing to hurt the German war machine and industry. All the pieces in Germany were in place for another gigantic army. Hitler put the pieces together, nothing more, nothing less.

Stalin, while being a horrible asshole, made the country into a powerful westernized (in a sense) country. He set up and made Soviet industry possible. So he destroyed the middle class, yes. He killed alot, yes. But he made Russsia into a powerful country. They would have been 4x as effective if he wasnt so damn paranoid and decided to kill all his officers before the war : /

Ruling with an iron fist and demanding much, like Stalin, does has its advantages. Like pushing his people to do anything he wants, like make railroads, give up all their property, work in an industrial job, eat little. He made USSR into something.

At 6/6/05 09:50 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 6/1/05 06:45 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Hitler took a country that was in shambles and made it something great, while Stalin took a country that was in shambles and made it considerably worse. There's so many awful things to tell, but I'll let you begin.

I think you have it all backwards. Look at the Versailles treaty. It really did almost nothing to hurt the German war machine and industry. All the pieces in Germany were in place for another gigantic army. Hitler put the pieces together, nothing more, nothing less.

Stalin, while being a horrible asshole, made the country into a powerful westernized (in a sense) country. He set up and made Soviet industry possible. So he destroyed the middle class, yes. He killed alot, yes. But he made Russsia into a powerful country. They would have been 4x as effective if he wasnt so damn paranoid and decided to kill all his officers before the war : /

Ruling with an iron fist and demanding much, like Stalin, does has its advantages. Like pushing his people to do anything he wants, like make railroads, give up all their property, work in an industrial job, eat little. He made USSR into something.

lol and look at the ussr now.....wait you cant it doesnt exist..........all commie states will fall its just a matter of time. take china for instance if they didnt have the capitalist hong kong they would be broke, and they have the british to thank for that

At 6/7/05 08:32 PM, chaos999 wrote: lol and look at the ussr now.....wait you cant it doesnt exist..........all commie states will fall its just a matter of time. take china for instance if they didnt have the capitalist hong kong they would be broke, and they have the british to thank for that

Great, buddy. I dont believe in Communism either.

I was arguing Hitler vs. Stalin and who did more to make their country "powerful" Stalin did more, but at a huge price to the lives of his people. I would rather he never existed, but this argument was nothing more than a different outlook on 2 horrible people.

Dude Fab, just so you know, Stalin wasn't really a communist, he was way more of a facist.

At 6/6/05 09:50 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 6/1/05 06:45 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Hitler took a country that was in shambles and made it something great, while Stalin took a country that was in shambles and made it considerably worse. There's so many awful things to tell, but I'll let you begin.

I think you have it all backwards. Look at the Versailles treaty. It really did almost nothing to hurt the German war machine and industry. All the pieces in Germany were in place for another gigantic army. Hitler put the pieces together, nothing more, nothing less.

Wow. No. The Treaty of Versailles heavily limited both the war industry and the army itself. In what possible way could you be thinking that it didn't? Some of the ways were: limiting the army to 100, 000 men, disallowing Germany an airforce, tanks and submarines, most of the Kriegsmarine was dismantled. And then the French went and occupied the Ruhr, which made Germany's industrial capacity almost totally under French supervision. Many of Germany's territories which were lost in the Treaty of Versailles would have been, and were later, crucial to war efforts. These include: Alsace-Lorraine, the Saar, large parts of the Western USSR (won fair and square by Germany in 1917, but stripped from them as a part of the treaty). Also, having to pay hefty reparations made it exceedingly difficult for the spineless governments of the Weimar Republic to even run the country, let alone an army.

Stalin, while being a horrible asshole, made the country into a powerful westernized (in a sense) country. He set up and made Soviet industry possible. So he destroyed the middle class, yes. He killed alot, yes. But he made Russsia into a powerful country. They would have been 4x as effective if he wasnt so damn paranoid and decided to kill all his officers before the war : /

First of all, the country was not Westernized. Stalin just did exactly what many previous rulers of Russia tried to do: force Russia to catch up with the West, no matter the cost. The cost was almost 20 million Russian lives, and that's before the war. Stalin did not make Russia powerful until the war occurred, just like America didn't get out of the Great Depression until the war propelled them out. Stalin killing his commanders was bad, yes, but we must also remember that his people were uneducated. The troops could only be taught rudamentary military skills, and were not capable of executing the complex and unpredictable manouvers that Western armies were.

Ruling with an iron fist and demanding much, like Stalin, does has its advantages. Like pushing his people to do anything he wants, like make railroads, give up all their property, work in an industrial job, eat little. He made USSR into something.

And yet Hitler was able to make Germany the most powerful nation on earth in six years without having to resort to those things. Stalin was not able to inspire that kind of passion in his people until the war, and it was the war that made Russia powerful.

At 6/8/05 10:04 PM, Jerconjake wrote:

Also, having to pay hefty reparations made it exceedingly difficult for the spineless governments of the Weimar Republic to even run the country, let alone an army.

I dont know why you think the Weimear Republic was spineless. It was a flawed system yes. And it failed to stand up to the pressures of the 20s and 30s. But Gustav Stresemann succeeded in undoing a lot of the reparations in his time with the Republic. He won a Nobel Peace Prize for getting the Allied forces on his side and helping Germany back on its feet after the hyperinflation caused as a result of the Ruhr Crisis. Would you call him spineless?

At 6/9/05 05:30 AM, LedgendaryLukus wrote:

At 6/8/05 10:04 PM, Jerconjake wrote:

Also, having to pay hefty reparations made it exceedingly difficult for the spineless governments of the Weimar Republic to even run the country, let alone an army.

I dont know why you think the Weimear Republic was spineless. It was a flawed system yes. And it failed to stand up to the pressures of the 20s and 30s. But Gustav Stresemann succeeded in undoing a lot of the reparations in his time with the Republic. He won a Nobel Peace Prize for getting the Allied forces on his side and helping Germany back on its feet after the hyperinflation caused as a result of the Ruhr Crisis. Would you call him spineless?

Of course there were exceptions. I think that most people would agree that the Weimar Reupublic governments as a whole were spineless. Generally they didn't do much of anything except make Germany worse, and were unwilling to take necessary risks to get the country back on her feet.

At 6/8/05 10:04 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Wow. No. The Treaty of Versailles heavily limited both the war industry and the army itself. In what possible way could you be thinking that it didn't? Some of the ways were: limiting the army to 100, 000 men, disallowing Germany an airforce

Were there still unregulated civilian airplanes and research? Were there still TONS of ready commanders for the Germans? Were there sill ready men to fight?

tanks and submarines, most of the Kriegsmarine was dismantled.

Did they still produce illegal designs for tanks, subs, artillery, everything? Didnt they still have the greatest minds in the WORLD at the time to do this? What about the pocket battleships?

And then the French went and occupied the Ruhr, which made Germany's industrial capacity almost totally under French supervision.

Was the inustrial facilities and resources still there when they reocupied the territories?

The fact is, Germany never felt the effects of the Great War like Russia, or France did, DESTROYING much of the country, crushing morale, etc. etc. Germany didnt understand the effects of a war like that unlike the countries where the war was fought. And her industries were still in pristine, working order. THATS my point. Everything was still there, just needed reorganizing.

Stalin killing his commanders was bad, yes, but we must also remember that his people were uneducated. The troops could only be taught rudamentary military skills, and were not capable of executing the complex and unpredictable manouvers that Western armies were.

You think he killed his brass because they were to complex for his troops? WhA? And you think they had bad Generals? Zhuikov is widely considered as one of the best generals in all of WWII. What with the Russia hatin?

And yet Hitler was able to make Germany the most powerful nation on earth in six years without having to resort to those things. Stalin was not able to inspire that kind of passion in his people until the war, and it was the war that made Russia powerful.

They were the most powerful nation on Earth before the Great War. And little that happened before, during, or after the war changed that. Russia, on the other hand, had little to nothing to start with. Look where Stalin took them to. Swamping over an unprepared enemy much like the Germans did before.

The fact is, Germany had much more going for her after the Great War, despite the Treaty of Versailles. Russia didnt. Even the Poles were whooping ass on them in a war. Everything was going to hell in a handbasket. And, somehow, they managed to pull it out.

This is slighlty off topic for the thread but oh well. I'm a playwrite and am curently working on a piece that takes place partially in WWII Japan. I've been scanning everything that I can to find this information and have so far been unsuccessful. I know that there used to be an American Embassy in Shimoda Japan, and that it is now in Tokyo. I assume this is because during WW2 we abandoned our embassy. I was wondering if anybody could give me information on when that would have been?

At 6/11/05 03:22 PM, FAB0L0US wrote:

At 6/8/05 10:04 PM, Jerconjake wrote: Wow. No. The Treaty of Versailles heavily limited both the war industry and the army itself. In what possible way could you be thinking that it didn't? Some of the ways were: limiting the army to 100, 000 men, disallowing Germany an airforce

Were there still unregulated civilian airplanes and research? Were there still TONS of ready commanders for the Germans? Were there sill ready men to fight?

Yeah, there were, and the army used gliders to train pilots. There were also tons of commanders on both sides. I mean, if Stalin hadn't killed them all. Part of the reason that Germany loses these wars is because it simply cannot call on the manpower that it's enemies can. Russia, being so densely populated, had, and later exploited that huge advantage.

tanks and submarines, most of the Kriegsmarine was dismantled.

Did they still produce illegal designs for tanks, subs, artillery, everything? Didnt they still have the greatest minds in the WORLD at the time to do this? What about the pocket battleships?

They designed tanks and tested them on Russia soil, of course. But the Russians were free to design and produce at will. The greatest minds in the world were there, yes. Pocket battleships were a concept derived by the man who concieved the Dreadnought battleship, some time before the Treaty of Versailles.

And then the French went and occupied the Ruhr, which made Germany's industrial capacity almost totally under French supervision.

Was the inustrial facilities and resources still there when they reocupied the territories?

The fact is, Germany never felt the effects of the Great War like Russia, or France did, DESTROYING much of the country, crushing morale, etc. etc. Germany didnt understand the effects of a war like that unlike the countries where the war was fought. And her industries were still in pristine, working order. THATS my point. Everything was still there, just needed reorganizing.

Yes, that's true. But France, having been probably the most damaged on her own soil, was still able to produce large armies with state of the art tanks that could best the Germans easily were it not for the superior tactics of the Germans. France also barely ever had a stable government and still did better than the unstable governments of the Weimar Republic because it was not feeling the constant pinch of the Teaty. Britain also, had not yet really felt war. Nor had America. Even despite the much larger industrial capacity of America, the Germans did better after 1933. Russia, too, hadn't changed much since the Great War, other than that it was made weaker by its leaders. Only during the war was Stalin able to achieve the power that he did, and much of that was simply a shift in the balance of power in Europe with the Germans having been eliminated. Moreover, in the Great War, Russia was fighting mainly on soil that was not part of Russia Proper, which left a great deal of the industry and manpower intact for the Soviets.

Stalin killing his commanders was bad, yes, but we must also remember that his people were uneducated. The troops could only be taught rudamentary military skills, and were not capable of executing the complex and unpredictable manouvers that Western armies were.

You think he killed his brass because they were to complex for his troops? WhA? And you think they had bad Generals? Zhuikov is widely considered as one of the best generals in all of WWII. What with the Russia hatin?

No. I know why Stalin killed his commanders, I'm not a complete idiot. Stalin killed his commanders for yet another reason that illustrates his madness: paranoia. I never said anything about his commanders. Zhukov was definately one of the better ones of the whole war. I'm saying the troops, as in the average soldier. They were seriously uneducated.the German officers always talk about the predictability of the attacks they made because their troops were not able to do the classwork that they did.

And yet Hitler was able to make Germany the most powerful nation on earth in six years without having to resort to those things. Stalin was not able to inspire that kind of passion in his people until the war, and it was the war that made Russia powerful.

They were the most powerful nation on Earth before the Great War. And little that happened before, during, or after the war changed that. Russia, on the other hand, had little to nothing to start with. Look where Stalin took them to. Swamping over an unprepared enemy much like the Germans did before.

The fact is, Germany had much more going for her after the Great War, despite the Treaty of Versailles. Russia didnt. Even the Poles were whooping ass on them in a war. Everything was going to hell in a handbasket. And, somehow, they managed to pull it out.

Remember the collapse the the German economy, the resulting famine, the heavy restrictions on the governments and the inability to run the country due to huge reparation payments? Remember how the Treaty of Versailles restored large amounts of land and their resources to Russia that were rightfully German? How Russia had even more potential than Germany due to her huge population and tremendous resources? Oh, and how from 1917-1942 the Soviets were unable to explot their potential, while Hitler did it in six years.

At 5/30/05 08:17 PM, Jerconjake wrote: The Soviets also invaded Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and Finland

NONONONONONO!! USSR never invaded Finland! They tried to, but didn't succeed in it. Eventually we gained help from the Nazis and fought the Soviets off, but at first we were all alone fighting one of the most powerful armies in the world (this is something that the ultra-patriots over here are always talking about). Finland did lose some areas though, and after the war, we were forced to chase the German troops out of the country, which proved to be tricky.

At 6/13/05 04:05 AM, Aapo_Joki wrote:

At 5/30/05 08:17 PM, Jerconjake wrote: The Soviets also invaded Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland and Finland

NONONONONONO!! USSR never invaded Finland! They tried to, but didn't succeed in it. Eventually we gained help from the Nazis and fought the Soviets off, but at first we were all alone fighting one of the most powerful armies in the world (this is something that the ultra-patriots over here are always talking about). Finland did lose some areas though, and after the war, we were forced to chase the German troops out of the country, which proved to be tricky.

True, that was a very proud moment for Finland. For those who don't know: The Soviets thought they could run right over the Fins like the Germans did to the Poles. Finland did exceptionally well against them, but this is also due in part to the Russians' almost total unpreparedness for war. Three successive Finnish defense lines between Lake Ladoga and the Gulf of Finland managed to hold the Red Army off for some time, until the Soviets brought all of their weight to bear. The Nazis never directly committed troops to Finland due to the Nazi-Soviet Pact. However, munitions were sent, including thousands of the famous Panzerfaust, which was a very effective anti-tank weapon.

Finland later signed up with the Axis, most notably participating in the siege of Leningrad. After that though, my knowledge gets a little hazy. You say you had to chase the Germans out after the war?

Had Hitler held to the pact with Russia and conquered France and Britain (isles and africa) first before moving into Russia, the Germans would have won the war. Dispite the fact that the Soviet Army would have had more time to build and develop weapons, Germany would not have been devided 3 ways (britain, africa, russia). Then he could have focused on Russia and not worry about invasion from the north or south. The US would never have been able to launch a siege across the atlantic, they would need a staging point like africa or britain.

At 6/16/05 03:33 AM, Luieburger wrote: Had Hitler held to the pact with Russia and conquered France and Britain (isles and africa) first before moving into Russia, the Germans would have won the war. Dispite the fact that the Soviet Army would have had more time to build and develop weapons, Germany would not have been devided 3 ways (britain, africa, russia). Then he could have focused on Russia and not worry about invasion from the north or south. The US would never have been able to launch a siege across the atlantic, they would need a staging point like africa or britain.

I diagree. Had Hitler conquered Britain, he still would have had to have troops there to occupy the country. More importantly though, the Soviets had already won the war by the time of D-Day. The invasion certainly shortened the war, but contributed little to the certainty of final victory for the Allies.

Of course, the Allied bombing campaigns against Germany were vital to the Soviet success. However, had the Red Army been given the time necessary for Germany to capture and subdue Britain, they would have been much better prepared for war. By contrast, the Germans would certainly be drained, due to the sturdy inclination to resist in Britain.

The US troops that invaded North Africa were convoyed directly from the United States. At least two fronts were therefore inevitable. The semi-autonomous state of Vichy France was allowed to keep its North African colonies. The Americans would still have landed in Morocco, only in greater force, and concentrated all of their efforts on Italy. The invasion of Europe was staged from Britain due to convenience, but if it was removed, only North Africa remains as an option.

At 6/16/05 02:23 AM, Jerconjake wrote: True, that was a very proud moment for Finland.

The first part of the war perhaps (aka the Winter War), when Finland was fighting the USSR alone. After deflecting the Soviet attacks, the Finland signed a peace treaty with USSR, which, however, only lasted for a year, until the Soviet troops attacked again, beginning the second war, known as the Continuation War. This is when we had support of the Nazis, and I'm not particularly proud of my country having a Nazi history. After all, Finland did turn over some Jewish POW's (not very much though, we're talking about some dozens or maybe a little over a hundred) to Germany, even though anti-Semitism never existed in Finland in the same sense it did in most of the other Germany's allied countries.

Some even claim that Finland could have avoided going to war altogether, if it had given into some of the Soviet Union's demands prior to the invasion attempt.

most notably participating in the siege of Leningrad.

Eh... not really. The Finns did fight the Soviets very close to Leningrad, but according to my knowledge, they never participated in the siege itself, although Germany had requested it. But maybe if you count the Finnish attacks on the Soviets in the vicinity as a part of the siege, then I suppose you could say that.

You say you had to chase the Germans out after the war?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapland_War

At 6/16/05 04:26 AM, Jerconjake wrote:

At 6/16/05 03:33 AM, Luieburger wrote: Had Hitler held to the pact with Russia and conquered France and Britain (isles and africa) first before moving into Russia, the Germans would have won the war. Dispite the fact that the Soviet Army would have had more time to build and develop weapons, Germany would not have been devided 3 ways (britain, africa, russia). Then he could have focused on Russia and not worry about invasion from the north or south. The US would never have been able to launch a siege across the atlantic, they would need a staging point like africa or britain.

I diagree. Had Hitler conquered Britain, he still would have had to have troops there to occupy the country. More importantly though, the Soviets had already won the war by the time of D-Day. The invasion certainly shortened the war, but contributed little to the certainty of final victory for the Allies.

Of course, the Allied bombing campaigns against Germany were vital to the Soviet success. However, had the Red Army been given the time necessary for Germany to capture and subdue Britain, they would have been much better prepared for war. By contrast, the Germans would certainly be drained, due to the sturdy inclination to resist in Britain.

The US troops that invaded North Africa were convoyed directly from the United States. At least two fronts were therefore inevitable. The semi-autonomous state of Vichy France was allowed to keep its North African colonies. The Americans would still have landed in Morocco, only in greater force, and concentrated all of their efforts on Italy. The invasion of Europe was staged from Britain due to convenience, but if it was removed, only North Africa remains as an option.

However, Germany had to devote ALOT of troops to attacking Russia. Those troops could have been better used to attack Britain and Africa, and Russia would have held true to the pact because Stalin was a coward and the true motivation for the Russian people to develope their army was to get back at Hitler when he did attack. Russia would never have tried to threaten Germany because they feared them. Russa would have stayed wraped around Germany's finger for about as long as Hitler wanted. He would have had time to secure Britain and Africa, and build better defenses before he would have had to deal with Russia at all.

The Americans did land in Africa, but this is because they had an area where they could land. Hitler could have eliminated this. Even if the Americans were successfull, they would only be coming from one direction. I think Hitler would have had one year after finishing Africa and Britain to build up oil reserves and build new armies before having to move on and conquer the rest of the world.

At 6/16/05 11:32 AM, Luieburger wrote: However, Germany had to devote ALOT of troops to attacking Russia. Those troops could have been better used to attack Britain and Africa.

That's what I think too. Hitler should have conquered the U.K. before he moved on and started more fronts as the eastern.
Africa was also more important to conquer than the Sovjet Union at the time.
Stalin didn't intend to attack Nazi-German though they already was in war and as they was in a huge industrial revolution.

At 6/16/05 11:32 AM, Luieburger wrote:

At 6/16/05 04:26 AM, Jerconjake wrote:

At 6/16/05 03:33 AM, Luieburger wrote:

However, Germany had to devote ALOT of troops to attacking Russia. Those troops could have been better used to attack Britain and Africa, and Russia would have held true to the pact because Stalin was a coward and the true motivation for the Russian people to develope their army was to get back at Hitler when he did attack. Russia would never have tried to threaten Germany because they feared them. Russa would have stayed wraped around Germany's finger for about as long as Hitler wanted. He would have had time to secure Britain and Africa, and build better defenses before he would have had to deal with Russia at all.

Stalin would have betrayed the Nazi-Soviet Pact at the first possible opportunity. Even during the war his mindset was one of attack. He preferred a preemptive strike rather than static defense. In fact, those in charge of the Soviet Union before the war were told that the very first shot would be fired on enemy territory. The only reason Stalin didn't go ahead and attack first was because the fiasco in Finland convinced him that his army was ill-prepared for war. Stalin was actually counting on a long and drawn out war between Germany and the west, so that he could build up his strength. Capturing and subduing Britain would not at all be as easy as France, for logistical reasons, and because of the fighting spirit of the British that didn't exist in war-weary France.

The Americans did land in Africa, but this is because they had an area where they could land. Hitler could have eliminated this. Even if the Americans were successfull, they would only be coming from one direction. I think Hitler would have had one year after finishing Africa and Britain to build up oil reserves and build new armies before having to move on and conquer the rest of the world.

The fact that the Americans would only be coming from one direction does not make them weaker. In fact, the more fronts that the Americans needed to support, the weaker they all became. If their full might was put against North Africa, they could have done just as much damage as they did with D-Day, considering that the Germans would already be at war with Russia after one year. They could have compensated for the absence of the British troops because they would only have to direct their attention in Europe to one front.

At 6/16/05 07:18 AM, Aapo_Joki wrote:

At 6/16/05 02:23 AM, Jerconjake wrote: True, that was a very proud moment for Finland.

The first part of the war perhaps (aka the Winter War), when Finland was fighting the USSR alone. After deflecting the Soviet attacks, the Finland signed a peace treaty with USSR, which, however, only lasted for a year, until the Soviet troops attacked again, beginning the second war, known as the Continuation War. This is when we had support of the Nazis, and I'm not particularly proud of my country having a Nazi history. After all, Finland did turn over some Jewish POW's (not very much though, we're talking about some dozens or maybe a little over a hundred) to Germany, even though anti-Semitism never existed in Finland in the same sense it did in most of the other Germany's allied countries.

Some even claim that Finland could have avoided going to war altogether, if it had given into some of the Soviet Union's demands prior to the invasion attempt.

most notably participating in the siege of Leningrad.

Eh... not really. The Finns did fight the Soviets very close to Leningrad, but according to my knowledge, they never participated in the siege itself, although Germany had requested it. But maybe if you count the Finnish attacks on the Soviets in the vicinity as a part of the siege, then I suppose you could say that.

Sorry, I should have made it clear that that's what I meant. I'm fairly certain that the Fins never directly participated in the siege itself, but they did attack in the vacinity to keep the city closed in. And who could blame them, considering the unprovoked invasion by the USSR.

You say you had to chase the Germans out after the war?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapland_War

Very interesting, I was not aware of that. I've found it difficult to find information about Finland in World War Two, though that has been a topic of interest for me. Thank you for for the formal name of that war, I'm sure it will allow me to explor further into Finland's WWII history!

Remember, any credit for winning the 2nd Big One has to go to Stalin. More fighting occoured in the east than anywhere else. We won due to sheer Russian tenacity. Also one reason for the 45 year "cold war"

At 6/21/05 12:52 AM, fastbow wrote: Remember, any credit for winning the 2nd Big One has to go to Stalin. More fighting occoured in the east than anywhere else. We won due to sheer Russian tenacity. Also one reason for the 45 year "cold war"

I absolutely agree, but that's no reason to praise him as a leader.

Why not praise him? he knew what had to be done and how to do it...

At 6/21/05 01:00 AM, fastbow wrote: Why not praise him? he knew what had to be done and how to do it...

Please read my posts on page 5.

To the victors go the history books.....
Even though Stalin was a warmonger, he STILL WON!
WOW!
He knew what he needed to do, and he did it........

At 6/21/05 01:07 AM, fastbow wrote: To the victors go the history books.....
Even though Stalin was a warmonger, he STILL WON!
WOW!
He knew what he needed to do, and he did it........

Not really. Stalin won because he allowed his subordinates to tell him what he was doing wrong. If he had continued to believe that he was doing everything right, he would have done just as badly as he did from 1942-42. That is why Hitler lost the war. Stalin consistently had no regard for human life. In fact, he had much less regard for the Soviet people than did Hitler. I don't think anybody could convince me that Stalin wasn't 100 times worse.

The problem is, in war, how can one regard human life?
Interesting paradox...

At 6/21/05 01:36 AM, fastbow wrote: The problem is, in war, how can one regard human life?
Interesting paradox...

Because you're in war does not in any way mean that you should disregard human life like Stalin did. The German officers in the war felt that their abuse of human life was criminal, because they were so willing to sacrifice any amount of people for a single objective. In the beginning at least, the Germans had a high regard for human life. Stalingrad made that impossible.

All governments that want to win make the survival of their troops paramount. Stalin learned that from the Nazis, and he was still inhumanly wasteful of life after that. Stalin only won because he had more people, and he would have had even more if he hadn't starved and worked 20 million of them to death before the war.