The Fallen of the WW2 (Video + Data Visualization)

[Liu Kang]

@Liquid, the WW2 can't be understood without looking at the past wars between France and Germany (or Prussia) and/or also the becoming of the (now) French regions Alsace and Lorraine. WW2 is a culminating point because of resentment, frustrations and past humiliations regarding both countries and it was bound to happen. Read about the Treaty of Versailles for starters which is stated quite universally as the focal point of the German resentment towards France (and its allies).

Of course, there are plenty other causes but from a strictly European geopolitics POV, the Franco-German rivalry that lasted for centuries (counting Napoleon wars, the endless wars between Houses of Bourbon and Habsburg, also the catholic (France) VS protestant (Germany) enmity etc.) is a major cause of both WWs.

 

[Liquid]

@Liquid, the WW2 can't be understood without looking at the past wars between France and Germany (or Prussia) and/or also the becoming of the (now) French regions Alsace and Lorraine. WW2 is a culminating point because of resentment, frustrations and past humiliations regarding both countries and it was bound to happen. Read about the Treaty of Versailles for starters which is stated quite universally as the focal point of the German resentment towards France (and its allies).

Of course, there are plenty other causes but from a strictly European geopolitics POV, the Franco-German rivalry that lasted for centuries (counting Napoleon wars, the endless wars between Houses of Bourbon and Habsburg, also the catholic (France) VS protestant (Germany) enmity etc.) is a major cause of both WWs.

Yeah, I think you and @Front 2 Back are misinterpreting what I am asking. I think we are all in agreement that the war was probably inevitable.

I know all about the treaties, especially Treaty of Versailles. My question is mostly whether another leader would have aggressively targeted other nations the way Hitler did. I just have a tough time seeing an aggressive push out there the way Hitler started occupying nations. We will never know, but its an interesting topic to talk about. When Germany started occupying territories, the presentation above stated that Nazi soldiers were surprised with how easy it was to do so. Clearly, the losers of WWI were upset with the harsh punishments handed down after the fact. Hitler however amassed an incredible Army and resumed War in a short 20 year time frame with every intention to own the entire region and possibly the United States as well.

For that reason alone is why I responded to this thread because it made it seem like Hitler was not as much of a monster as MAO or Stalin, when in my opinion he could have possibly been worse if he were to have led Germany to victory in World War II. The examples of him not giving up his own people is noted, but IMO he didn't really have much of a choice because he needed all the help he could get after such a short reign. I can't imagine he would tolerate those who opposed him whether they were German or not, anyone who would oppose his ideology would get dealt with quickly after World War 2 IMO.

 

[#StarkSet]

Yeah, I think you and @Front 2 Back are misinterpreting what I am asking. I think we are all in agreement that the war was probably inevitable.

I know all about the treaties, especially Treaty of Versailles. My question is mostly whether another leader would have aggressively targeted other nations the way Hitler did. I just have a tough time seeing an aggressive push out there the way Hitler started occupying nations. We will never know, but its an interesting topic to talk about. When Germany started occupying territories, the presentation above stated that Nazi soldiers were surprised with how easy it was to do so. Clearly, the losers of WWI were upset with the harsh punishments handed down after the fact. Hitler however amassed an incredible Army and resumed War in a short 20 year time frame with every intention to own the entire region and possibly the United States as well.

For that reason alone is why I responded to this thread because it made it seem like Hitler was not as much of a monster as MAO or Stalin, when in my opinion he could have possibly been worse if he were to have led Germany to victory in World War II. The examples of him not giving up his own people is noted, but IMO he didn't really have much of a choice because he needed all the help he could get after such a short reign. I can't imagine he would tolerate those who opposed him whether they were German or not, anyone who would oppose his ideology would get dealt with quickly after World War 2 IMO.

I understood why you were saying thats why I brought up Mussolini and Stalin.

 

[Liquid]

I understood why you were saying thats why I brought up Mussolini and Stalin.

So you really think that Mussolini and Stalin would have aggressively started occupying like that? I don't know why I am having such a tough time wrapping my head around that, might just be the constant pushing of how Nazi Germany this and Nazi Germany that, that I can't see anyone else escalating things that quickly.

 

[#StarkSet]

So you really think that Mussolini and Stalin would have aggressively started occupying like that? I don't know why I am having such a tough time wrapping my head around that, might just be the constant pushing of how Nazi Germany this and Nazi Germany that, that I can't see anyone else escalating things that quickly.

Mussolini wanted to attack france in the early 40's


Stalin would have waited longer but it was inevitable that he was moving west to expand his territory

 

[Scottie Drippin]

So you really think that Mussolini and Stalin would have aggressively started occupying like that? I don't know why I am having such a tough time wrapping my head around that, might just be the constant pushing of how Nazi Germany this and Nazi Germany that, that I can't see anyone else escalating things that quickly.

Don't forget that the Soviets were in talks to join the Axis Powers officially in 1940 after they split Poland between themselves. Then the Soviets invaded Finland but got held off somewhat, and then rushed Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia when Germany ran up in France. Then they pretty much told Romania to bow down and Germany gave Romania the to make sure they agreed,

But the invasion of Finland put pressure on Hitler because Germans fukked with them, and he got put under so much pressure he had to evacuate German families. Russia also claimed more of Romania than the two agreed on. Stalin was sweeping up places with large sources of raw materials and increasing German reliance on Soviet imports and doing basically what he would do when Russia linked up with the Allies later, did shyt while teamed with someone now that definitely read as a play against them in the future. The thinking was the Soviets would be the fourth sphere of influence, going from eastern europe and into the middle east (which, y'know, they'd try 20 years later anyway).

The Soviets were nearly every bit as on a world conquering tip as the Nazis. I say nearly, only because the one thing I don't think Stalin would have done, is run up on Germany as quickly as Hitler flipped and decided to go after Russia.