I think with Japan it's also that issue - because that's part of the Pacific War that didn't ultimately affected Europe, it's not often talked about and therefore the myths of the Americans can kick in. Even although, I'm not used to the myth that the bombs saved a lot of peoples' lives. Perhaps it's something you mostly hear overseas and maybe in England. But perhaps I also had a good history teacher.
You know a saying that I know? The American's saw he Nazis killed in the end and contributed their part, but while this happening - or after this happening -, they realized they killed the wrong pig. Stalin had been way more powerful. I also know it that way, the sinking of the trading ships before the American East coast, that was a big mistake of the Nazis to do, otherwise if the war had only lasted in Europe and left them alone with it, only heading for battling CCCP, they would have joined an alliance with the Nazis in their fight. It really politically was the same to them if a lot of people were killed in concentration camps, especially the Jews (American anti-semitism depictured in films and series quote often also doesn't come out of nowhere, right?). To the contrary, if it was about genocide and killing masses of people, you always found a certain crowd advocating this behavior in the United States.
It's all rhetorics what takes place in this time. But because some figures in history were never really linear, rather ambivalent, it is hard telling the truth from the lies. At least for my part, Stalin was paranoid and for sure did some things which cannot consider to have been good, he even did some things which one may not be able to understand (like the integration of the today seperatist parts of Grusiya which actually even then been loyal to Moscow, but even though he integrated them into the ГССР), but what he also was was a thinking politician. He didn't act only out of randomness.
I remember reading something about the war with Finland. Actually, the situation was like this: Sooner or later, the Nazis also would come to Finland (this was as already the other countries of Scandinavia were already occupied). Even then, I think, the situation with the government of that country already was like you were dealing with one of those countries occupied by the Nazis. So - in order to prevent another front facing the Third Reich, he rather chose to be the one who begins the war in order to be more able to control it and be not the one ambushed by another front that suddenly opens up. Someone who reigns only by randomness doesn't act like this. This is strategy.
About Finland, yes, it's true it was a strategic move, because the border was moving closer and closer to Leningrad so in case of war which seemed imminent at the time there was no choice. So it was a preemptive move.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
You know a saying that I know? The American's saw he Nazis killed in the end and contributed their part, but while this happening - or after this happening -, they realized they killed the wrong pig. Stalin had been way more powerful.
I also know it that way, the sinking of the trading ships before the American East coast, that was a big mistake of the Nazis to do, otherwise if the war had only lasted in Europe and left them alone with it, only heading for battling CCCP, they would have joined an alliance with the Nazis in their fight.
It really politically was the same to them if a lot of people were killed in concentration camps, especially the Jews (American anti-semitism depictured in films and series quote often also doesn't come out of nowhere, right?). To the contrary, if it was about genocide and killing masses of people, you always found a certain crowd advocating this behavior in the United States.
It's all rhetorics what takes place in this time.
But because some figures in history were never really linear, rather ambivalent, it is hard telling the truth from the lies.
At least for my part, Stalin was paranoid and for sure did some things which cannot consider to have been good, he even did some things which one may not be able to understand (like the integration of the today seperatist parts of Grusiya which actually even then been loyal to Moscow, but even though he integrated them into the ГССР), but what he also was was a thinking politician. He didn't act only out of randomness.
I remember reading something about the war with Finland.
Actually, the situation was like this: Sooner or later, the Nazis also would come to Finland (this was as already the other countries of Scandinavia were already occupied).
Even then, I think, the situation with the government of that country already was like you were dealing with one of those countries occupied by the Nazis. So - in order to prevent another front facing the Third Reich, he rather chose to be the one who begins the war in order to be more able to control it and be not the one ambushed by another front that suddenly opens up.
Someone who reigns only by randomness doesn't act like this. This is strategy.
no subject
About purges, there is an article. Sorry it is long but it describes what was happening in 1930 more or less.
https://stalinsocietygb.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/the-purges-of-the-cpsu-in-the-1930s/
no subject