Mao: Greatest Criminal of 20th Century?

Lazarus Plus said:
Ekarderif said:
John Uskglass said:
And who's to say there would even BE a WWII in the first place? Nazism needed the big angry Soviet threat to provoke the German people into mass insanity.
The Nazis rose to power because Germany was economically fucked up by France. The only threat the Soviets posed was during 1941 (or so Hitler thought). I don't understand where you get your facts.

What? The Nazis rose to power because of the economic chaos caused by the Great Depression, when America had to call in it's loans.

It was mostly because of the fact that France (and Belgium) kept on demanding the much too high repair-payments Germany was sentenced to, and they even occupied parts of Germany in order to get that money that Germany had it so bad, economically. I think the impact of the US' loans were marginal at best.
 
LOL

This discussion is funny considering the thread that I have posted.

:lol:

I wrote something about this a long time ago, so I'll see if I can go dig it up.

The ultimate problem of cultural revolution isn't what many people think it might be. It's actually a very deep and very dark one.

The basic concept is that societies need a certain lvl of trust to function. Now that is completely stripped away, what would happen?

(sorry, welsh, I'll get those economical speeches translated later ) :P
 
Jebus said:
It was mostly because of the fact that France (and Belgium) kept on demanding the much too high repair-payments Germany was sentenced to, and they even occupied parts of Germany in order to get that money that Germany had it so bad, economically. I think the impact of the US' loans were marginal at best.

I've recently read "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", and yes, those were contributing factors but ultimately Germany was able to pay them so long as she was able to loan money from America. Once shw couldn't, then the payments to France and Belgium became completely unmanageable.
 
Lazarus Plus said:
He's a very hated man in Russia, is he not? That's one determinant for good/bad. Not the most quantative, but still.

Heh. Some Russians hate him, some admire. There's a discussion whether to set up a monument to commemorate Stalin now or to postpone that. What I know for sure, Russians will never put Stalin and Hitler together.

Lazarus Plus said:
It's true that WWII would have been different/harder had Russia not been with the Allies (this is assuming either that Hitler beat the Russians or did not attack them) but it's hardly a "no-win" proposition.

Or imagine the Allies without Russia. I think they would have made peace with Hitler. England had such plans in 1939 already.
 
Hardly. Say what you will about Chamberlain, but he was no fool. When Hitler had his eyes on Czechloslovakia, Chamberlain's advisors told him that Britain was in no condition to fight a war. As soon as Chamberlain made his "Peace in our Times" statement, he initiated a military buildup in the UK that gave him enough strength to issue the ultimatum to Germany when it invaded Poland.

Ironically enough, if France and Britain had gone to war with the Germans over Czechloslovakia, the Poles would have likely sided with Germany.
 
Bradylama said:
Hardly. Say what you will about Chamberlain, but he was no fool. When Hitler had his eyes on Czechloslovakia, Chamberlain's advisors told him that Britain was in no condition to fight a war. As soon as Chamberlain made his "Peace in our Times" statement, he initiated a military buildup in the UK that gave him enough strength to issue the ultimatum to Germany when it invaded Poland.

Ironically enough, if France and Britain had gone to war with the Germans over Czechloslovakia, the Poles would have likely sided with Germany.

England and France both turned down an offer by the Soviet Union to form an alliance in order to contain Nazi Germany before they conceded Czechoslovakija to the Germans. This "drang nach osten" (whether truly intended or merely coincidental) prompted the Soviet Union, being in no state to fight a war against Hitler due to the recent purges of officers and the majority of its weapons manufactioring plants being located in the west of the country, to conclude the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty. After that it began preparing for the war with the Nazis (moving factories to the east, occupying parts of finland to create a buffer around leningrad, etc).

On the hypotheses of there being no WW2 without a Russian revolution. This seems strange because both the german fascism and russian communism came into place due to a weak middle class in both countries. If you insist on it however, fascism hardly needed communism, they had enough ethnic minorities to blame for every single thing that was wrong with... everything
 
The Allies first let Chekhoslovakia (March, 15th 1939), then Albania (April, 7) to be captured by Hitler and Mussolini. The Allies gave warranties to Poland and easily betrayed her, when Hitler attacked. Britain "bombed" Germany with anti-war leaflets. France did nothing at all.

Bradylama said:
Ironically enough, if France and Britain had gone to war with the Germans over Czechloslovakia, the Poles would have likely sided with Germany.

The Poles hated Hitler too much to unite with him.
 
[Rusty Chopper said:
]
The Poles hated Hitler too much to unite with him.
Well, they could be forced to ally with Germany' cause Europe really
sucked ass, compared to ALL german army -\

P.S.
С днем Рождения!
 
Back
Top