A philosophical question.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Frunze:

Does your last point imply that Stalin realized that Germany might turn on him at some point?

I'm under the impression.

Poland, the main anti-Russian (if not anti-Soviet) antagonist from the 20's was done away with and the Archangelsk expedition in the 20's during the civil war had shown how hard it is to operate from a distance so I doubt he took anybody else except Germany that seriously in his short/intermediate term plans.

[SgtMuhammed]

It is also revealing that the "Five Year Plans" were designed to prepare the Soviet Union for the coming conflict with the West.

[Frunze]

Well, logically, Stalin should have realized war with Germany was coming. For the reasons Tero mentions - and also because Germany wouldn't have the internal political problems and military mutinies that Britain and France experienced during their interventions in the Russian Civil War.

But from his actions during the Stalin-Hitler pact, it sometimes seems that he was such a moron he didn't see it. He brought the borders of the USSR and the Reich in contact along a broad front, pissed off every potential ally and neutral state, supplied the German military with raw materials, gave Germany the possibility of taking on one front at a time. He bought time, sure, but what did he do with it? He gained a little territory - which was lost very quickly anyway during Barbarossa.

And then when Barbarossa came, he was in denial.

[SgtMuhammed]

Sometimes I think that Stalin was so desperate to have the Soviet Union recognized as a great nation that he was able to convince himself that Hitler was really his friend. Even so it is hard to understand his actions between Poland and Barbarossa.

[argie]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I would think that it could be argued (by those knowing more about it than I do) that his non-capitalist leaning on the labour union may have something to do with the mess Argentinia is in.

Yep. That could be argued. Considering that most of the past century the Argentinian Governments were more akin to antiperonism than peronism...

[Tero]

Originally posted by Frunze:

But from his actions during the Stalin-Hitler pact, it sometimes seems that he was such a moron he didn't see it.

I'd rather say he refused to acknowledge the fact HIS projection about the flow of events of things to come was less than perfect. He had calculated war with Germany would not start that early and was, as you say, in denial when the attack came.

He brought the borders of the USSR and the Reich in contact along a broad front

In their view they bought space for time at bargain basement price.

, pissed off every potential ally and neutral state,

Sweden did not count, Turkey was not going to do anything. Finland was about the only potential ally or neutral country on USSR western border who was pissed off needlessly. The Baltic states had been gobbeled up in no time with little effort.

Down south the Bessarabia incident had enraged people and most, if not all, governments had already been replaced with German puppets or were far more willing participants than Finland ever was.

supplied the German military with raw materials, gave Germany the possibility of taking on one front at a time.

Concur.

He bought time, sure, but what did he do with it? He gained a little territory - which was lost very quickly anyway during Barbarossa.

True.

The way the Germans handled the local populace was a god sent gift for Stalin. With a little less ardent racial agenda on the table the Germans would have had a united Europe in their hands 60 years ahead of schedule.

[ December 28, 2002, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by tero:

... Until February when the Red Army got its **** together and started making progress.

This is a vital point!

I got some nice books for christmas, one of which discuss Sweden during WW2.

It makes an interesting remark about the Winter war:

The whole thing started with a demand from Stalin for Finland to give up a large part of Karelia (to move the border away from Leningrad) and to lend out Hangö for a couple of years.

The Finnish government refused, and so the war started.

What would have happened had the Finns complied in the first place?

If this would have appeaced Stalin and prevented war, then the Soviet army would not have "gotten it's **** together" in 1940, and therefore probably done even worse in 1941.

Germany might have managed to take Moscow as well as gone further on the other fronts.

By late '42 Ural might have been the frontline...

Cheers

Olle

[Ari Maenpaa]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

What would have happened had the Finns complied in the first place?

When were your christmas present books published?

Latest research about the matter seems to indicate that the whole negotiation process was only a diversion from the the Soviet Union's part. Here's a Russian scholar's take on the thing:

http://www.helsinki-hs.net/thisweek/48011999.html

At least two Finnish researchers (Rautkallio and Manninen) have also come to the same conclusion as stated in their most recent books (both published in 2002).

So the Soviet Union (= Stalin) had already decided to occupy Finland even before any territorial claims had been presented.

Ari

[Tero]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

The whole thing started with a demand from Stalin for Finland to give up a large part of Karelia (to move the border away from Leningrad)

The portion was not that large. And it would have moved the border only from the shore of the Gulf of Finland in the mainland Isthmus (along with the islands). In the Eastern part of the Isthmus the border would have run as before.

What would have happened had the Finns complied in the first place?

The same thing that happened to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Increased political pressure until a coup would have been staged and the new government would have seeked to join the USSR.

If this would have appeaced Stalin and prevented war, then the Soviet army would not have "gotten it's **** together" in 1940, and therefore probably done even worse in 1941.

Only Hitler would not have dared attack in 1941. He would have focused on taking out Britain and only after subduing her would he have turned East.

Germany might have managed to take Moscow as well as gone further on the other fronts.

By late '42 Ural might have been the frontline...

If Hitler had attacked in 1941. But I doubt he would have done that since the Red Army was still an unknown force to him.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa:

When were your christmas present books published?

Some time during the last Milennia ?

One interesting passage in the URL caught my eye:

Across the entire front there were signs of the imminent collapse of the Finnish resistance. “Nevertheless, the Soviet leadership wanted to bring an end to the war, because Moscow feared the West might get involved. Moscow also recalled Finland's dreams of occupying Easten Karelia”, he argues.

They wanted to end the war so Finland could still harbour its dreams of occupying Eastern Karelia as well as have a grudge against themselves for taking the ground they took as a result of the war ?

If this is true then they (Stalin) were in fact banking on Finland winding up in a conflict with them and they could (hope to) finish up the business (of occupying the entire country) at a later date. This is supported by the fact USSR continued to harrass and pressure the Finnish government in a very antagonistic fashion. And they did bug the Germans about the "Finnish issue" repeatedly. They could have been pushing us into the Germans lap and making sure the Germans knew they were doing that.

[ January 07, 2003, 04:08 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Tuomas]

Originally posted by tero:

One interesting passage in the URL caught my eye:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Across the entire front there were signs of the imminent collapse of the Finnish resistance. ?Nevertheless, the Soviet leadership wanted to bring an end to the war, because Moscow feared the West might get involved. Moscow also recalled Finland's dreams of occupying Easten Karelia?, he argues.

They wanted to end the war so Finland could still harbour its dreams of occupying Eastern Karelia as well as have a grudge against themselves for taking the ground they took as a result of the war ?

If this is true then they (Stalin) were in fact banking on Finland winding up in a conflict with them and they could (hope to) finish up the business (of occupying the entire country) at a later date. This is supported by the fact USSR continued to harrass and pressure the Finnish government in a very antagonistic fashion. And they did bug the Germans about the "Finnish issue" repeatedly. They could have been pushing us into the Germans lap and making sure the Germans knew they were doing that.[/QB]</font>

[mattf]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

It's not a question if productive capitalists were glad about the new german economical system.

Why not?

That's just polemic.

The basic-conditions a system gives to the productive workers of fist and brain and the unproductive parasitically traders and money-lenders are important.

And the unproductive, but very powerful international money lenders and traders saw very clearly, that this new system was the declaration of war against interest-slavery.

And they did what was necessary to get rid of this threatening.[/QB]

[ January 07, 2003, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: mattf ]

[mattf]

Sorry to stunned to write after reading this first time and i dont realy know what im doing never been bothered enough to post before. thought there was something a bit fishy about the anti censorship pack though. not a great fan of faschist rants ( or using capitals)

[ January 07, 2003, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: mattf ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Tuomas:

I think that the professor refers to the possible bombing of Pietari-Äänislinna railroad.

I think not. The text at least separates between the fear of the bombing as a real military peril and the reasons for making peace mere hours before the collapse of the Finnish forces as a political decision.

Besides, why would aspirations to join the Fenno-Ugrig tribes together be in par with a simple military operation of bombing a rail line in this context ? Why did he even link that up with the possibility of the Western powers joining in in the side of Finland at this early stage ? The way I read the remark it means the Finnish desire to get hold of the territory inhabited by Fenno-Ugric tribes coupled with the loss of terrain as a result of Winter War made it possible for Stalin to maintain a "legitimate" hostile attitude towards the Finns without being seen as a sore loser. And it also made sure the Finns would not remain neutral later on with that kinds of bones to pick.

I know the Soviets (and to some extent the Russians) were (are) prone to make these kinds of cryptic statements and it may well be the original statement loses some in the translation.

I think there was a great fear of bombing in the soviet leadership

After the early debacle that could well be true.

Thanks for the link BTW. Most interesting.

Maybe they had been reading too much of Harris!

You mean Douhet ? Harris did not pop up until during WWII as the penultimate bomber commander.

[past caring]

Sorry for post being a little "off topic", but have to agree with mattf about Schoerner's posts. He might have also quoted

if the Empire doesn't get rid of interest-slavery and it's deadly embrace by the USA, but when Highgrade Freemason Churchill became Prime-Minister, the way GB would go, was clear.

Anyone with more than a passing knowledge of present day as well as historical fascism/nazism will know there is only one direction Schoerner is coming from-note particulary the references to freemasonry and "interest-slavery". I wonder who Schoerner thinks "controls" this system? Does the answer have the words "international" "conspiracy" and"Z*****t" in it, by any chance? Definately seems to be a case of the "Dr Strangelove" complex at work here-tho' of course Peter Sellers did a better job of controlling his left arm.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

... that this new system was the declaration of war against interest-slavery.

[/QB]

I guess the Third Reich preferred real slavery.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Marlow:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Schoerner:

... that this new system was the declaration of war against interest-slavery.

I guess the Third Reich preferred real slavery.[/QB]</font>