Printable View
alright, i have to come up with a video/powerpoint on everything that Russia had to do with World War 2, my problem is.... i cant find any info! >_< i always find things on germany =/
so can you guys post everything you guys know what russia had to do with World War 2? or help me with some research? =/
I know a lot of what Russia did just before World War II. But I guess thats not relevant.
All I know is that Hitler's big mistake was to invade Russia. The Hitlerians got frozen and they lost.
Search for Staline, should help ^^ I can't remember much about Russia during the WW2 but I think they didn't do much!:(
thanks, i got some info on joseph staline :)
^Its 'Stalin' btw. There isnt an 'e' at the end.
I learnt all about Stalin's purges, and his attempts at collectivization. He went to extreme costs to modernise Russia. That helped when Hitler invaded. On the other hand, he killed millions of people for no valid reason at all.
sweet, i take hes a big person in russia (should help my powerpoint lots :))
anyone know how the world would be like if Hitler had won WWII?
or the mistakes and accomplishments Russia did during the war?
Estaline was the greatest dictator Russia ever had! The guy was terrible and killed Trotsky :whimper: If Hitler would have won the WW2 there'd be no jewish ever and we'd all have to have blonde hair and blue eyes! :rolleyes2 Now seriously good always win so don't think about what'd be if Hitler would win! It's like asking what if Devil would kill God... the answer is not good! ^^
Focus on ur power point work on the measures Stalin took. When I was in high school the only thing they taught us was what Stalin made and when it'd come to World War 2 they just teached us the battles and dates! ^^
lucky, our teacher makes us teach ourselves -.-
We as well <_< they gave us documents and we had to analyse them. Try to find good documents on the Internet about Stalin! It'd be really nice if you had a piece of text that was from that time ;)
Wikipedia article on the Eastern Front. Start there.
That has got to be the biggest understatement ever if not an all out false statement, and furthermore, Stalin was not "good." Not only were they involved with a German NAP, they helped to attack Poland (which caused the UK and France to declare war), and later they managed the Eastern Front and got betrayed by Hitler, stopped the Germans in a large number of battles, sank the most casualties and losses of all participating nations, managed to not only defend against the Blitz, but turn it all the way around. After Normandy, staying in the war caused German to be involved in a two front war; after the losses in Africa and Italy, it was a three front war. They entered Berlin around the same time as the other Allied forces and were ready to help the States with the Pacific Theater (not that Stalin wanted to do much).Quote:
Originally Posted by Polaris
If you want to move into conjecture-land, they caused the loss of the Nazi regime in WWII, and were one of the reasons for using the Atomic Bomb on the Japanese. The reason for the use wasn't to "save troop lives," it was to impress the Soviets. Tokyo and several other cities had already gotten their faces owned by fire bombs and repeated raids, along with the island-hopping strategy devised. Shortages of supplies on the Japanese part were more than enough to finish the Pacific Front.
thanks tavrobel, now i have to change up my powerpoint a bit :p, but the eastern war helped alot :)
ummm, how would the world be like if RUSSIA had won the war? O_o
Russia did win the war. They checked the Allied Victory Box, along with the US, UK, France (lol), and every other Allied Power nation, and turned back the Eastern Front.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tifa's Real Lover(really
Russia won a little of German! Could be worse :\
The main question I think would be what if Hitler would have won the war!
I do remember a document where a guy said that after a Stalin speach they all had to clap for more than half an hour like they clapped and clapped and clapped even if they were tired they had to keep clapping and of course one would be tired enought o stop clapping and then the police would take that man who stopped clapping first and arrest him!
Buy The Unknown War on DVD
(the link contains not only the buying links, but also information about the film)
A very good movie about WWII. Contains lots of documentary material and videos of that time.
And it's a shame to all of you (except for Tavrobel) that you know so little about WWII and role of Russia in it. Polaris, when I read your statement,I felt deeply offended. However, it's not your fault that someone from Russia got to read that. Avoid saying that if you ever get a talk about it with anyone related to Russia, okay?Quote:
I can't remember much about Russia during the WW2 but I think they didn't do much!
:save: Selena
lol If I'd ask you what Salazar did you woulnd't know much either ;) It's been 3 years since I studied the second world war and in fact we didn't study much about it, it just took us 90 minutes of it! We actually spent more time studying the politics and economy politics of Hitler and Stalin we found it more interesting here to find out what they did instead of war itself ^^ Like NEP the Collectivization etc ^^ oh and we also studied more then Cold War... so yeah all the facts I knwo from WW2 were from documentaries, more than school!
That sounds like a true story. Stalin during his purges was absolutely crazy. People would disappear in the middle of the night and never be seen again. Little girls would go on trial even for plotting against Stalin and stuff like that I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Polaris
And then he chucked loads (millions) of people in the Gulags to die. He also made his people work like dogs for very little reward.
But Stalin wasnt all bad news. Some of the stuff he did helped prepare Russia against the Nazis.
Yes he was a bit like Salazar like well we don't want to be too involved but you know we don't get in your territory but you don't come into ours as well! ^^ Salazar even accpeted a Merecedes I think from Hitler but in the end he helped a lot of jewish... of course he also got some of their money but oh well...Quote:
Some of the stuff he did helped prepare Russia against the Nazis.
alright, i finished up my powerpoint, but i cant post it as an attachment because it says its an invalid file =/
Attachments aren't working darling! ;) Do you have a 4shared account? Might help ^^
nope im afraid not =/ ill have to try attachments later on, its due tomorrow :x
True... Not sure about the rumor, but the arrests, absolutely true.Quote:
Originally Posted by VivisteinerThat sounds like a true story. Stalin during his purges was absolutely crazy. People would disappear in the middle of the night and never be seen again. Little girls would go on trial even for plotting against Stalin and stuff like that I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Polaris
Make the reward 200 g of black bread (and not a fact that you'll get the whole of your share, kitchen steals), a bowl of porridge (again, kitchen steals), and 2 bowls of the stuff that can be hardly considered something even to be thrown away, let alone soup or anything of that sorts.Quote:
And then he chucked loads (millions) of people in the Gulags to die. He also made his people work like dogs for very little reward.
I knew that all from reading a book by one of the people who made it though all of this, "The Gulug Archipelago" by Alexander Soljenitsyn (though I'm unsure about how his name is spelled...) (Lib.Ru: Александр Солженицын Even if you know Russian, read with caution, it's VERY horrifying) And I know that Hitler borrowed some of his ideas of what to do with Jews and other prisoners from what Stalin did.
:save: Selena
Russia was caught off guard at the start of the second World War as a result of the Molotov-Ribbentop (Nazi-Soviet Pact) signed in 1939 between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Basically it was an agreement between the two powers to divide up recently created Poland between the two of them. The British Empire and France declared war on Germany whilst Russia focussed on its neighbouring countries when in 1939 it declared war on Finland (The Winter War) and in 1940 when it occupied Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. Encouraged by Russia's poor showing against the Finnish and making little progress on the Western Front after the defeat of France, facing an increasingly impossible invasion of Great Brtain (Operation Sea Lion), Hitler embarked upon Operation Barbarossa to invade the USSR. Stalin was - by all accounts - outraged and mostly unprepared when invaded in 1941. Traditionally Russia has had a massive but ill-equipped and unprepared military (as was the case in WWI) and so were unable to effectively mount a resistance against a German invasion.
The turning point really came at the Battle of Stalingrad. The Russian city was surrounded by the Germans following their swift invasion of Russia, but the battle erupted into the bloodiest battle in history. Hundreds of thousands were killed including many civilians. More detail on Stalingrad that evades me shouldn't be too difficult to find online. The tide turned on the Germans into 1942 and the Russians began a swift and overwhelming counter-invasion of Eastern Europe, eventually occupying Berlin in 1945.
That was probly my history teacher getting carried away. :pQuote:
True... Not sure about the rumor, but the arrests, absolutely true.
I dont think they went on trial actually. I think they just disappeared.
You cannot say that Stalin helped prepare the SU against the nazi's. He comitted worse genocide than the Nazi's did. He let millions be killed by starvation. He became paranoid and killed off all the people closest to him. Then he sent unarmed men into battle against Germans with tanks and Machine guns and shot anyone who turned back.
His regime might be less known than the Nazi one, but it was just as bad.
^I never said he wasnt worse than Hitler. He killed more people for a start, and I dont deny he was a terrible man. But he did do some important things that did prepare Russia. I studied Russia in the period leading up to World War II, and his attempts to industrialise Russia did not have wholly negative connotations.
Stalin's main atrocities were his purges and the murdering of all those people. But in terms of industrialising Russia, he succeeded. Sure, it didnt all go to plan, and huge numbers died working under him but after it was all finished they did reap the benefits from what he did in terms of vastly improved production of raw materials. Focussing purely on Russia's industry, there is a case to be made for Stalin being more of a helper than a hindrance.
Looking at Stalin's rule as a whole though, he definitely was a terrible, terrible person. You just cant portray him in a simplistic, one dimensional way like you did there.
Saying the things he did for war were good is like saying that Hitler industrializing Germany was good, that America creating the atom bomb was good. They all leaded to scientific and industrial progress, but that doesnt make the action right.
Actually those things by virtue of the advancements they produced could be argued as being generally positive, even if they had negative aspects. Even though the Atomic Bomb was created with the intent to destroy, and its victims were horribly disfigured, vaporized, or died from poisoning, one could argue that it led to one of the more stable parts of the century. Pardon my twisted thinking, but a 1v1 with weapons whose true potential was completely unknown is way better than a 2v2v3v2v3v2v5v6v1v2. MAD? Economic push in wartime? You know that the States were at their economic height in the 60s and 70s, right? Furthermore, the absolute desire to surpass the other bloc led to extraordinary advances in all fields of science. These are good things with bad elements. Advancement is generally good.
Furthermore, Hitler was elected by the people of Germany. It seems that people decide to ignore this fact; TIME magazine, iirc, chose him as a Man of the Year in the 30s. He did do good things; he brought the people out of depression, solved many an economic problem, re-industrialized Germany for the future, and united the country which had more or less been split apart, quibbling and arguing over petty things. These were all good things, and are what leaders should have been expected to do. If Europe said no to all of Hitler's "I want this I want that" instead of appeasing him, Germany could have been stable for the next 70 years. Does that make what Hitler had done at that point done a bad thing? One should not confuse context with individual actions.
If you want to talk about horrible things, where's what the Communists did in China; the Great Leap Forward, "New Science"? Apparently whatever is the boldest is the most successful! Greater Eastern Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere? Hi Japan! So, let's talk about the Filipino-American War. Ever knew that existed? Ohh, how about modern atrocities? Wouldn't take much effort at all, and yet, a one-dimensional view of Hitler and Stalin having created ONLY evil must be true. Absolutely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tavrobel
Hitler got elected because France hold the Ruhrgebied after the First world war. People were starving because of payments they had to give to France and England. Hitler had a good economics, because he fueled the machine of war. He opened factories for Tanks and weapons, indoctrinated the people and took back the Ruhrgebied. If France and England had retaliated immediatly, there would have been no economic upliving. He was a leader that united the people by giving them someone to hate, he was no leader, he was a manipulator and a dictator. He even tried to overthrow the goverment before, but was arrested and it failed. These are only the individual actions.. no context here.
There was no decent bone in that man's body, he, the same as Stalin, used the SS to oppress the people into voting for him.
He got into office by manipulation, and stayed there by indoctrination and oppression. He basically build a country that can only survive on warfare, how would that make a stable economy when you dont assault another nation?
Yep Dennis but Europe wanted to humiliate German! :rolleyes2 so it was their fault! Everyone knows that when people are in crisis they don't care if their minister wants to kill jewish or conquer the World all they want is to have food!
But after a while Hitler's economy would be tired because you can't build war material forever! Now with Stalin and Salazar it was quite different!
Salazar was elected now the title of 'the best portuguese of all time' last year here in Portugal... we have to admit they all had great ideas but the perfect government doesn't exist!
So you you believe that Nazi Germany should have been blamed for acting on something they had no control over, and not the French or the British who had decided everything without consultation? They rejected most of Wilson's 14 Points, which should surely have led to a more stable Europe, and kept trying to drive the nail in, when there were already several in place. There was no need to take away Germany's major industrial centers with a debt attached on, especially with the other provisions that were established as terms for losing the first World War. Thanks for ignoring what the rest of Europe did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight
Tell that to me again when you learn what could've been if he had succeeded as an artist.
In regards to a permanent war economy, hello, 1984! i didntz c u thar
Indeed. The biggest cause of World War II was the Treaty of Versailles. The nations of Europe largely seemed to completely ignore their own very recent history. The Congress of Vienna in 1815 kept Europe out of major war for 100 years, and how did it do it? By not punishing the people for the leaders' actions. Yet, that's precisely what they did in Versailles and as a result Germany fell into economic ruin, and basically paved the way for a nationalistic leader like Hitler to take control.Quote:
Originally Posted by TavrobelSo you you believe that Nazi Germany should have been blamed for acting on something they had no control over, and not the French or the British who had decided everything without consultation? They rejected most of Wilson's 14 Points, which should surely have led to a more stable Europe, and kept trying to drive the nail in, when there were already several in place. There was no need to take away Germany's major industrial centers with a debt attached on, especially with the other provisions that were established as terms for losing the first World War. Thanks for ignoring what the rest of Europe did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight
Tell that to me again when you learn what could've been if he had succeeded as an artist.
In regards to a permanent war economy, hello, 1984! i didntz c u thar
Though the motives behind the Treaty of Versailles are somewhat understandable. Europe was devastated by the first World War and wanted to avoid another conflict on that scale at any cost. By creating an incredibly weak Germany, the Entente forces hoped to prevent any further conflict. It was complete overkill though and definitely was a major contribution to WWII's outbreak (and as a result of appeasement, the most obvious direct contribution).
You cant attribute one reason for Hitler gaining power, especially one that is not even true. Hitler was elected to power, but not because of the problems due to Raymond Poin Carie's invasion of the Ruhr. What you must remember is that Stresseman helped to recover Germany's economy during the Ruhr period by introducing the Rentenmark and by signing the Dawes Plan etc. That is why the 'Golden Twenties' followed that. Germany had solved its problems, it was recovering.Quote:
Hitler got elected because France hold the Ruhrgebied after the First world war. People were starving because of payments they had to give to France and England.
But that all changed on one terrible day in 1929. Im talking about the Wall Street Crash. That changed everything. Stresseman had died, and the economy crashed. Elections came and the people were looking towards someone with extreme measures and big promises. That person was Hitler. That is the main reason why he got elected to power. Of course, there were many other reasons, and Hitler did not immediately gain power. But he did not gain power because of the Ruhr. The main impact of the Ruhr and reparations and the whole Treaty of Versailles was that it made a lot of Germans hate the French, British, Americans even more. In terms of crippling Germany, it failed.
Thats not true. Even before he was waging war his people were saying how greatly the economy had improved under him. They would say phrases such as 'Hitler has taken away our freedom. Our freedom to starve.'Quote:
There was no decent bone in that man's body, he, the same as Stalin, used the SS to oppress the people into voting for him.
He got into office by manipulation, and stayed there by indoctrination and oppression. He basically build a country that can only survive on warfare, how would that make a stable economy when you dont assault another nation?
Wilson wasnt that great either. He was far too idealistic, and his solutions were often impractical. If Clemencau or Lloyd George had tried to help the Germans in such a way, their people at home would have launched huge protests and kicked them out of office. The only way the people could get elected was by saying stuff like 'We shall squeeze the Germans till the pips squeek, and then squeeze again!' The again, Lloyd George was more reasonable than Clemencau. Clemencau ideally wanted Germany divided into lots of little states, with no armies!Quote:
They rejected most of Wilson's 14 Points, which should surely have led to a more stable Europe, and kept trying to drive the nail in, when there were already several in place.
Anyway, in summary, people often present a simplified account of the events leading up to World War II. There were in fact two periods of economic problems. There was hyper inflation during the invasion of the Ruhr and then there was recovery. Then there was the Great Depression (due to the Wall St Crash) and that is when Hitler came to power.
Of course, I havent mentioned stuff like the Kapp Putsch or the Spartacist Uprising that happened before 1920. I should however mention the Beer Hall Putsch aka The Munich Putsch. Hitler got put in prison for it during 1924. So 1923 was the year of the occupation of the Ruhr. The hyper inflation happened during that 1923-24 period. Hitler tried to sieze power then, but failed and was imprisoned. So for those of you who thought that was what lead to Hitler coming to power, you are wrong. Hitler obviously couldnt have been elected then - he was in prison. It was only in 1933 that he was able to sieze power, after the Great Depression.
You may be wondering why it took so long for him to gain power. After all, the depression was in 1929. That is because his ascent to power wasnt simple. There were a whole series of elections and problems. Von Papen, Schleicher, Bruning were all involved. Eventually Hitler got it. But he only acheived true power when Hindenburg died. He then proclaimed himself as Fuhrer.
Germany started the first world war! How can they not be held accountable for that? The french and english did go over the top, but they just got out of a war that ruined their countries. And as everyone will know, terms are for the victorious. They suffered because of a war Germany started, and they could decide what they wanted in compensation. By sucking Germany dry they could never support another war. You have to understand that this was the first WW and such large wars weren't normal. They were afraid of Germany rising again, and looking at history, and understandable and justified fear.Quote:
Originally Posted by TavrobelSo you you believe that Nazi Germany should have been blamed for acting on something they had no control over, and not the French or the British who had decided everything without consultation? They rejected most of Wilson's 14 Points, which should surely have led to a more stable Europe, and kept trying to drive the nail in, when there were already several in place. There was no need to take away Germany's major industrial centers with a debt attached on, especially with the other provisions that were established as terms for losing the first World War. Thanks for ignoring what the rest of Europe did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight
Tell that to me again when you learn what could've been if he had succeeded as an artist.
In regards to a permanent war economy, hello, 1984! i didntz c u thar
And I did say that the people would do anything with the promises of Hitler, but that doesnt make him a great guy because he took advantage of it.
Really vivisteiner? I thought Germany recovered fromt he depression because Hitler created an economy by fueling money into the war industry and giving people jobs making arms of war. I didnt know they recovered before that, well, you learn something everyday.
^Germany cant be held accountable for World War II. Only Hitler can.
But France and Britain and America can all be held accountable for Hitler being elected to power. France and Britain crippled Germany and stirred a feeling of hate towards them, especially with france's invasions of the Ruhr. America's Wall St Crash also messed up the German economy (which was heavily reliant on the American economy).
France, Britain and America were also partly responible for World War II being so bad once Hitler reached power. They screwed up the league of nations, they used a terrible policy of appeasement ultimately let Hitler toy with them left, right and centre. (They were so afraid of War)
Then again, if Hitler had only wanted Anschluss it wouldnt have been so bad. Ultimately, the vast majority of the blame lies with Hitler.
EDIT:
You're not wrong about that, although you exaggerated its importance. Hitler still did spend a lot of money strengthening his army, navy and airforce during peace time and that helped boost his economy. But notice how his economy became so much greater without waging any wars. He didnt need a war to have a strong economy. Of course, once he started invading, Germany's economy really started skyrocketing.Quote:
Really vivisteiner? I thought Germany recovered fromt he depression because Hitler created an economy by fueling money into the war industry and giving people jobs making arms of war. I didnt know they recovered before that, well, you learn something everyday.
It wasn't the world's best idea, but it certainly more lenient on the Germans. I was merely using it as a reference to what would've been further from LOLRAGEQUIT.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisteiner
Actually, no they didn't, not that it's the point being argued. The start of the first World War began with the assassination of Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. Russia declared war on the rebels, which forced the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente to head into effect, which caused a chain of war declarations. Germany never started anything; they followed the suit of Austria-Hungary, which withdrew (or was very close to it) from the war due to a number of reasons, iirc, internal strife and displeasure with the war. With Italy having betrayed the Alliance a while ago, and AH unable to contribute, Germany found itself fighting against a number of enemy nations, alone. Methods taken against AH were not nearly as fierce, among one of them being a split between the two countries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aerith's Knight
To be perfectly fair, the States did not join the League of Nations, which is a fault of its own, but not necessarily related to having dealt with Germany, and was not quite nearly as involved in the punishment of Germany. At that point, the States were rather isolationist, due to the Depression, and didn't even get anywhere close to out of Depression until the Pacific Theater broke out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisteiner
If the league of nations had actually done something when Hitler occupied the Rhineland and broken the Treaty of Versailles and started invading, then WWII could have been stopped in its tracks. One of the reasons why the league was so weak was because America prefered isolationism.Quote:
To be perfectly fair, the States did not join the League of Nations, which is a fault of its own, but not necessarily related to having dealt with Germany, and was not quite nearly as involved in the punishment of Germany. At that point, the States were rather isolationist, due to the Depression, and didn't even get anywhere close to out of Depression until the Pacific Theater broke out.
The problem with the Treaty of Versailles was that it was a nothing treaty. It didnt cripple Germany enough to prevent if from being a threat and it promoted German anger towards France, Britain and America. But once it was made they should have least upheld it. Hitler was disobeying the treaty left, right and centre. And the rest of the world just watched.
Oh lol, just realised AK was talking about Germany starting WWI, not WWII. And yeah, Tavrobel is right about that. Although that was only the trigger. The main problem began when the arms race began. There was no point building so much weaponry if you werent going to use it!
I disagree, I think that Versailles did cripple Germany. The ridiculous reparation payments, the refusal of Germany to join the League of Nations and a huge blow to its national pride, great unemployment and hyperinflation were also results of the treaty as well. Versailles crippled Germany and it was only as a result of the Nazis coming to power and the policy of appeasement that Germany was able to re-establish itself and become a credible threat once more.
Also the United States wasn't simply isolationist due to the Depression; the United States reverted to its policy of isolationism following the first World War. Economically, there was a system of tariffs in place that meant that it was difficult or expensive to get foreign goods in the United States (many countries responded with similar policies in respect of American goods) and politically the US refused to join the League of Nations, whilst (I believe) placing stricter regulations on immigration. I forget the specifics, but it was something along the lines of the quota for immigrants being set at something like 10% those that were currently already in the US; this meant that it was biased towards people from countries such as the UK, who already had a lot of people living in the US compared to somewhere like - say - Poland that had relatively few.
Also, the outbreak of WWI is difficult to attribute to a single cause. Obviously the alliance system (Triple Entente and Alliance) exacerbated things, as did rearmaments with countries such as the UK vastly improving its navy. There's also the nationalist element that saw Franz Ferdinand assassinated, dragging the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Russia into direct conflict. You can also add into that mix Imperialism in general, gunboat diplomacy (the Agadir Crisis, etc) as well as general political rivalries.
Hmmm, you make some good points.Quote:
I disagree, I think that Versailles did cripple Germany. The ridiculous reparation payments, the refusal of Germany to join the League of Nations and a huge blow to its national pride, great unemployment and hyperinflation were also results of the treaty as well. Versailles crippled Germany and it was only as a result of the Nazis coming to power and the policy of appeasement that Germany was able to re-establish itself and become a credible threat once more.
I would argue that Germany wasnt crippled, it was weakened. Sure, the occupation of the Ruhr was pretty much a direct consequence of the Treaty of Versailles, and that lead to hyperinflation and so on. But, and this a big but, Germany recovered in quite a few years due to Stresseman and negotiations such as the Dawes Plan. That period after the deoccupation of the Ruhr was known as the Golden Twenties: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Twenties
The fact that Germany recovered so fast, the fact that Germans enjoyed the highest recorded standards of living according to some sources, shows to me at least that the Treaty of Versailles did not cripple Germany effectively. If Germany had been crippled it would not have recovered in such a short space of time. I do see your point that militarily it was still pretty weak, but economically it wasnt. And the fact that it was economically stable allowed for Hitler to build his army up. Of course, if Hitler had been prevented from doing so, history would be very different.
errr...wait..you're a history teacher aren't you. Maybe I shouldnt be arguing. :p
Yeah, the US had a history of isolationism. Interesting, I didnt know about that immigration stuff.Quote:
Also the United States wasn't simply isolationist due to the Depression; the United States reverted to its policy of isolationism following the first World War. Economically, there was a system of tariffs in place that meant that it was difficult or expensive to get foreign goods in the United States (many countries responded with similar policies in respect of American goods) and politically the US refused to join the League of Nations, whilst (I believe) placing stricter regulations on immigration. I forget the specifics, but it was something along the lines of the quota for immigrants being set at something like 10% those that were currently already in the US; this meant that it was biased towards people from countries such as the UK, who already had a lot of people living in the US compared to somewhere like - say - Poland that had relatively few
If I remember what my history teacher taught up, the first one, Quota Act of 1921 limited the quota to 3% of immigrants from the census in either 1900 or 1910 (my leaning is toward the latter). The follow up, 1924, set it to 2% of immigrants from the census in 1890. The major immigration boost and the flowering of the Progressive Era did not occur until after 1890, when people realized that "hey, the States are actually a good place to live, screw famine." This in effect slashed immigration numbers to a screeching halt. However, my history teacher seemed to put the two Acts in the context of mostly preventing Asian immigration, as opposed to immigration in general, which makes sense, when put next to the numerous legislation attempts to limit the integration of Asians in the Western US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heath
I believe that they should have been more than sufficient. However, with the outbreak of the Great Depression, there was a general alleviation of debts to a certain degree for all parties involved (though not completely). However, the rise of the German economy was too fast for it be "Hitler is just damn good at it," that something else, perhaps on a societal level, helped to push the economy forward. Even with a weak military, a strong economy is more than enough to produce a large army very quickly. I would attribute more toward the appeasement aspect of Europe that WWII actually began, and that the economy was also supported by the new revenue caused by appeasement, along with debt forgiveness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisteiner
Isolationist to the extreme, but never to the extent of most of the Eastern Asia countries. I can't remember the exact deal or concept name, but there seemed to be this policy of that each hemisphere would only deal with their hemisphere. US messed with South America, and half of the things in the Pacific Ocean (such as the Philippines), while Europe would deal with Europe, Africa, and Asia. A typical New World-Old World split. One could argue that it's not truly isolationism, but for the sake of history, American and European relations were less than open to the idea of "let's be friends." A begrudging acknowledgment of US sovereignty was not gained on the British side until 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars, at which point, Napoleon seemed to recognize the States on the same level as any other economy. We had what he wanted (the good old Yankee Dollar) and he had what we wanted (New Orleans).
But I always considered the rise in the economy to have preceded the appeasement. To me it seemed as if the economy was already rising, and appeasement just helped it along its way. I mean, the most obvious case of early appeasement was in the 1936 occupation of the Rhineland. Even if you count them allowing Hitler to build up his army that only goes as far back as 1934. But before then the economy, to my knowledge, was already improving. It was improving despite the fact that all those reparations had been paid. Granted, Germany hadnt payed the full original quotient, but that was out of an agreement, not a breaching of terms.Quote:
I would attribute more toward the appeasement aspect of Europe that WWII actually began, and that the economy was also supported by the new revenue caused by appeasement.
I edited my post, because I thought that what you had interpreted would have been my thinking that they had done something less than ethical to get where they were, whereas I believe them to be two different things that contributed, not necessarily related. I'm not absolutely sure on my dates when the rest of Europe seemed to decide to give Hitler what he wanted as long as it "okay, please just this one more thing." But the economic uprise wouldn't have taken place in the late twenties or carried over, it would've had to occur concurrently with Hitler's policies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisteiner
However, it's been four years since I took World History, and my US History class was less than generous on the European Front (which my teacher argued that he had already covered it in World History). My US History teacher seemed to treat WWII on the US v. Japan side of things, and he also provided us a nice little introduction to WWII Japan, with things such as the 5-5-3 Plan, the economic incentives for declarations of war, and the Greater Eastern Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, which mostly consists of the Japanese treating other Asian countries in a less than humane manner; it disturbingly reflected sentiments of European Imperialism, except rather than White-White or White-Black, it was Asian-Asian.
I'm not a history teacher, but I'd like to be one =p Couple of years off that, I don't start university (a year late) until September! At the moment, I'm just a bit of a nerd with a passion for history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisteiner
I suppose my point was that Versailles did cripple Germany and it was only as a result of actions in the 1920s that these effects were somewhat balanced out. Obviously Germany did gain greater prominence on the international stage through eventual membership of the League of Nations and through the Kellogg-Briand Pact and Streseman worked some real magic to sort Germany out, but I'd say they were in spite of Versailles.
I must admit, It's been a while since I actually studied the USA in the 1920s, 30s and 40s and the actual figures and acts escaped me (which is why I was so far off with the percentage). Thanks for the extra information. My point was really along the lines that, by limiting the extent of immigration to the USA, the nation itself was adopting a relatively isolationist stance as it was decreasing its relative role internationally by refusing immigrants, metaphorically closing the door to foreigners somewhat. As for the foreign nationals that benefited from those acts, I just knew off the top of my head that there happened to be a rather large number of Brits who moved over to the US at that point and just plucked Poland out of there as a country that probably had fewer people who had immigrated. Certainly makes sense in regard to Asian immigration though. Again, thanks for the info.Quote:
Originally Posted by TavrobelIf I remember what my history teacher taught up, the first one, Quota Act of 1921 limited the quota to 3% of immigrants from the census in either 1900 or 1910 (my leaning is toward the latter). The follow up, 1924, set it to 2% of immigrants from the census in 1890. The major immigration boost and the flowering of the Progressive Era did not occur until after 1890, when people realized that "hey, the States are actually a good place to live, screw famine." This in effect slashed immigration numbers to a screeching halt. However, my history teacher seemed to put the two Acts in the context of mostly preventing Asian immigration, as opposed to immigration in general, which makes sense, when put next to the numerous legislation attempts to limit the integration of Asians in the Western US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heath
well i got a 95 on the project :D thanks you guys i wouldnt of had this grade without your help :)
Was Stalin the one who made the prisoners attack?
I realise this is late, now, I just want to know. Or re-know, as it may be.
^What prisoners? Know any more details?
Stalin had a lot of prisoners. You're going to have to be more specific.
Hitler didn't create a war economy. Volkswagen and the Beetle were his brainchild, creating thousands of jobs. Hitler didn't come into power until after 1929 if my memory serves correctly. I remember there was hyperinflation in the early 1920s because the German government decided to print ridiculous amounts of money to pay back their debts. Pity Zimbabwe didn't listen.
But then in 1929, the Wall Street Crash happened, and America stopped lending money to Germany. Under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany had to make repayments to the Allies. But the European Allies had also borrowed substantially from the Americans. So it was like a circle where the Americans lent money to the Germans, who gave it to the European Allies, who then gave it to America as repayment. After the Wall Street Crash, America stopped lending money to Germany, and that caused a huge economic upset in Germany.
And that is when Hitler's party became more and more powerful, eventually allowing him to be a dictator. He talked about how he would take back the land taken from the Germans, he talked about redeeming German pride. And Hitler was very charismatic. The combination of an economy in turmoil, along with something to hate made Hitler very attractive to the common German.
And he did a lot of good for Germany in the early years, before the War, although the Jews were already being targeted. But he was always twisted, and the extent of that was evident in the Holocaust. Although Himmler was probably more twisted than Hitler himself.
However Stalin is on another level of evil. Go read Soltenhitzen if you want to hear about Stalin's political prisoner camps. And Stalin was directly responsible for many more cold-blooded murders than Hitler ever was. Go read an article on the Soviet invasion of Poland, especially the bit about Prisoner's of War being shot.
While the purges killed more people than the holocaust, I don't think it's fair to use that as a sole basis for declaring Stalin "more evil" than Hitler. Stalin's policies never included the global eradication of 'subhumans', for instance, even though many of his measures amounted to genocide, with entire populations afflicted by famines, or forcibly exiled from their homelands, as 'punishment' for perceived disloyalty of economic failures.
However, during the war, he was an absolutely resolute leader, and also an adaptable and capable commander - much moreso than Hitler. That's how's Russia's initially devastating losses and gross under-preparation got turned into a military catastrophe that cost Germany the war.
For a concise and tidy overview of Russia's role in the war - something we're criminally under-educated on in the West - I'd recommend Peter Kenez's A History of the Soviet Union from the Beginning to the End, from the Cambridge University Press. A fine book for anyone interested in learning more about the Soviet Union in its entirety, including the horrific nature of the civil war, famines, collectivisation, gulags and purges, in addition to the Second World War.