Russia caused World War 2? Hmmmm. Well, I know Russia ensured an Allied victory in World War 2. It' also should be noted that Russia couldn't have fough off the Nazi's had it not been for the American materiel especially and maybe specifically the trucks and motor transport. I believe my books on the subject state that the US M-somethingIcan'trecallrightnow tank was despised by Russian tank crews. Two books specifically mention the "valves go to pieces" line.

The Nazis killed something in excess of 25 million Soviet citizens in WWll. Not quite 'BARTENDER shoots LION dead', is it? Yes, the USSR was slow on the uptake, but they weren't the only ones, were they (cough cough)? But hey, why should the USSR be the only ones who get to rewrite history?

you left out the competing bartender who showed up and helped the first one blast the lion to fuzzballs. instead of going directly back to his own place afterwards, he spent a long while standing outside the first barkeep's joint, looking thru the window and taking notes to help him devise ways to keep his own patrons under control.

Cute.  Simplistic, but pretty close.

Almost all good points.

My point is this: a lot of people would like to give Russia credit for ending the war. Even Churchill freely acknowledges Russia's vital contribution to final victory over the Nazis.

Me? I understand what he's saying. But that's not all Churchill says. There's all sorts of arguments to be made about how Russia couldn't do it without American supplies (also desperately needed by, and diverted from, Britain); how Russia only survived the Nazi onslaught because significant Nazi forces had to be kept behind, in Europe, to guard against a counter-attack by a Britain that refused to give up; how Britain fought alone for two years, all the while pleading with Russia for an alliance against their common foe; how the moment Russia was invaded, they began pleading for Britain to rescue them by opening a second front in Western Europe; how Britain had been struggling desperately to do exactly that, and had received no help or support from Russia; how, in short, Russia did nothing beyond what their own selfish short-sightedness demanded of them to fulfill their own greed and survival-instinct.

There are many such arguments. But to my mind, there's only one argument that matters, and it is this: Russia began the war on Germany's side.

Hitler's invasion of Poland, and his entire strategy of conquest in Western Europe, were contingent upon Russian guarantees of non-aggression from the East while the Wehrmacht was busy in the West. Accordingly, Hitler and Stalin made a treaty, and Stalin accepted the Baltic states and half of Poland as payment for giving Hitler a free hand in Western Europe.

Just as the bartender allowed the lion to rampage, and even looted his own customers, and just as the bartender only took action when his own life was at risk, so also Russia enabled Hitler to perpetrate his crimes, benefited from the destruction, and only fought back when their ally betrayed them. That anybody would praise the bartender for stopping the lion, or Russia for stopping Hitler, baffles and disgusts me.

I'm not rewriting history, here. This is what the history is.

That anybody would praise the bartender for stopping the lion, or Russia for stopping Hitler, baffles and disgusts me.

But Russia did play a key role in stopping Hitler. Whats baffling about that. Conflict itself is bloody and brutal but I hope your disgust is not simply because their commies. If you really want to be disgusted read up on how certain latecomers made WWII possible in the first place. Not to mention the international banking system which played a key role allowing Germany to rearm itself with their righto matey bank books.

Its just the same story and same players told over and over again right throughout history. The powerful playing with the lives of the middle and underclasses in some vain hope to become yet more powerful. I dont see these type of stories going away any time soon.

I can see certain nations, on the far side of the world, having a certain isolationist attitude, and coming late to the war.

In other news, nobody is praising the international banking system for winning World War 2.

Anyway, one major difference between Soviet Russia and the other Allies was that Soviet Russia began the war on Germany's side, and accepted half of Poland as a payment for letting Hitler have a free hand in Europe. Russia switched sides only after Hitler betrayed them, and sacrificed all those Russian soldiers through incompetence and shortsightedness, rather than any sincere desire to defeat Nazism[1] or bring peace and freedom to Europe.

I don't expect these stories to go away either. But you might want to study them a bit, this one especially. War turns out to be no different from any other human story. There are good deeds and bad deeds. Good people and bad people. A right side and a wrong side. There are compromises, and refusal to compromise. There are difficult choices made, some rightly and some wrongly. There are good things done for bad reasons, and bad things done for good reasons.

The story of World War 2 is rich in lessons for us, wherever history may find us. To our shame, perhaps, the U.S. stayed out of the war for far too long. But you seem to be equating the shame of U.S. isolationism with the shame of Soviet land-greed and wilful ignorance. The two aren't even remotely comparable. I strongly urge yout to make a more detailed study of the complexity and nuance of this major conflict and significant historical turning point. "Sure, the Soviets raped Poland while the Nazis held her down, but hey, the U.S. was late getting involved, so it all evens out" is a pretty lame comeback.

Besides, I am reading up on "certain latecomers". Far from making WW2 possible (except possibly in the sense of "making it possible for Great Britain to fight WW2 alone for three years"), it seems as though the U.S. government did everything it could possibly do to join in, short of forcing an unconstitutional war on a free citizenry that was not yet convinced that war was a good idea. It seems that the U.S. actually gave everything it could, as quickly as it could.

Would you mind explaining exactly how the U.S. made the war possible, by staying out of it. Try to come up with an act of the same magnitude as "how about if we hold Poland down while you rape her", because "we'd rather not get involved in your mindless slaughter of each other" seems like a pretty reasonable starting point for the U.S., to me.

---

[1] Well, except in the narrowest sense of "defeat the invader of our motherland".

'I'm not rewriting history, here. This is what the history is'.
Hang on, what was the title of this thread again? 'How Soviet Russia Won World War II - if by "won" you mean "caused". Now, reassess the various merits of the players all you like, but to accuse the USSR of 'causing' WWII (and, by implication, absolving Nazi Germany of that particular accolade) is definitely creative, and ignores the huge benefit of hindsight.

On 29th September, 1938, Neville Chamberlain (the British Prime Minister) was a co-signatory of the Munich agreement, which backed Nazi Germany's annexation of the Sudetenland. Britain continued to pursue a policy of appeasement of Nazi Germany until Hitler broke the Munich agreement in March 1939 by rolling into the rest of Czechoslovakia. It took the subsequent invasion of Poland in September of that year before Britain declared war on Germany. Would they have done the same thing with the benefit of hindsight? I think not.

A month later, Roosevelt announced the USA's neutrality. In June 1940, the USA rejected a renewed appeal from France for help fighting the Nazi occupation. A week after this, France signed an armistice with Germany. It took the bombng of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 before the USA entered the war. (' It seems that the U.S. actually gave everything it could, as quickly as it could.' Hmm, does it really?) Would they have done the same thing with the benefit of hindsight? Again, I think not.

Now, let me make it clear that I'm not accusing either Britain or America of causing the war, just pointing out that 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. I notice that you're not accusing them of this either. Nor should you level this accusation at the USSR.

stutefish, I want what you're smokin'
I hope, that when you become elder and stop reading comics and pseudo-historic crap you'll find out that you're wrong. I don't know if it's a fault of your poor education (have you miseed classes?) or just, well, "moderate intellegence" but you should definitely pay more attention to hystory books, not Hollywood movies and yellow press.

Below is a straight quote from one of a myraid of articles available describing how various US corporations (not just US, but certainly including) helped rearm the Germans after the first World I. The current US president would have most likely contributed to his own election campaigns at some stage through his political career. Therefore you might say the current US President was elected on the backs of the WWII dead.

"It is bad enough that the Bush family helped raise the money for Thyssen to give Hitler his start in the 1920's, but giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war is treason. The Bush's bank helped the Thyssens make the Nazi steel that killed allied soldiers. As bad as financing the Nazi war machine may seem, aiding and abetting the Holocaust was worse. Thyssen's coal mines used Jewish slaves as if they were disposable chemicals. There are six million skeletons in the Thyssen family closet, and a myriad of criminal and historical questions to be answered about the Bush family's complicity."

“In two years Germany will be manufacturing oil and gas enough out of soft coal for a long war. The Standard Oil of New York is furnishing millions of dollars to help.” -Commercial Attaché, U.S. Embassy in Berlin, Germany, January 1933.

Yea. Another view would be that the patons were the Germans friendly with the Soviets after Molotov-Ribbentrop and the lions the allies. tho the bartender never shot the lion, just started a cold, cold war.

On a side note, I don't see any point labelling any side as good or bad or blaming anyone for the war. Not that I condone Hitler's war but in the core of his actions were just the nationalistic aspiration to be a strong nation, just like any other nation on Earth would aspire. I wouldn't say Hitler is an Absolute Evil, just cos his ends were just the same as any other politician.

soooo how would the Iraq -Iran war be viewed?

It sounds like to me the USSR was an enabiler of Germany and in the end became a war hero but deciding not to enable Germany anymore after being attacked.... or is it the US fought the USSR through Iraq and when that was over the US won.

If it sickens you to hear that Russia is a hero in WWII, you might feel just as sick about Iraq right now because of a certain dictator who was enabled during the 1970's and 80's.

Yes, I know, its not exactly the same, but it is close, no? All nations have a certain selfishness about them. None are more grand than the other in this respect.

It sounds like to me the USSR was an enabiler of Germany and in the end became a war hero but deciding not to enable Germany anymore after being attacked.... or is it the US fought the USSR through Iraq and when that was over the US won.

YOu beat me to the punch.  I agree that Russia did not start WWII, but by being to decietful, they did enable Hitler to be more agrressive.  But then so did Chamberlain, France and the other wimps.  IN the end, it was colossal mistakes on the part of the French, British, and Russians that lead to hitler's arrogance, and our eventual involvement.

Canary, nobody is praising Neville Chamberlain for winning World War 2. Pointing out his shameful part in this story doesn't do anything at all to convince me that Russia's part in the story was not shameful.

But now that you mention it... The more I study this period of history, the more it seems like Chamberlain was motivated by a sincere but naive desire for peace. Not only that, but he worked tirelessly, and made every possible effort, committed every act it was in his power to commit, that he believed would lead to peace and not war. As it turns out, he was tragically, horribly, wrong. But he was sincere in his beliefs, utterly committed to the goal of peace, and totally dedicated to the hard work his ideals demanded of him.

Compare this to Stalin's behavior to the same period: uninterested in peace, coldly dismissive of all attempts at diplomacy and alliance offered to him by Britain, and completely unwilling to take any steps that might prevent the rise of Nazi power. In fact, he was more than willing to let Hitler have his way, so long as he was allowed a share of the spoils.

Bringing up Chamberlain in this context makes the Soviet behavior seem even more repugnant.

Roosevelt had an interesting problem. Like Churchill, he wanted to oppose Hitler early and often. But like every western nation except for Nazi Germany, America was full of people who were tired of war, tired of destruction and slaughter, tired of violence. Americans didn't want to fight, and furthermore felt no pressing need to get involved in a regional conflict halfway around the world.

Roosevelt declared neutrality because Congress would not let him declare war. Shameful? Maybe. But understandable. While he waited for public opinion to come around, Roosevelt passed the time by committing a huge number of impeachable offenses in support of the British War effort. These acts of support kept Britain alive and gave hope to nations who saw the gradual approach of the U.S. towards belligerent status as an Ally.

Compare this to Stalin's behavior to the same period: uninterested in peace, coldly dismissive of all attempts at diplomacy and alliance offered to him by Britain, and completely unwilling to take any steps that might prevent the rise of Nazi power. In fact, he was more than willing to let Hitler have his way, so long as he was allowed a share of the spoils.

Bringing up Roosevelt in this context makes the Soviet behavior seem even more repugnant.