Division of Europe - 1945

[Bananas]

So not to completely hijack the other thread.

For me, I think yes. The French gave in to Germany in only days without much of a fight at all, THEN used its military and people to fight as Nazi's while Estonia put up a much better fight even though it as depleted from fighting Russia and THEN unlike the French refused Hitlers demands to become Nazi's and fight for its cause after it was defeated.



I understand this, and I understand if the USA had come to Estonia it would be put between the Nazi's AND the Russians. This strategy would not have been so good and to this I can agree.



I think what bothers most here is the EU Navy crews and ships that escaped to England fought for England and the US to help defeat Germany, then after the war with Germany Estonia was just left to be given to Russia, when it was the allies mission to "liberate" Europe. Russia was no better than the Nazi's only they happened to be fighting the Nazi's for land they to invaded. What made the Russians any better than Germany to the Allies? After the fall of Germany, Russia to was weaken, would it not be an opportune time to push Russia back as well where they belong?

Also after Germany fell Russia and the allies made deals with European countries like they were trading cards as to who got what. Even half of Germany was saved by the allies, but countries like Estonia who fought both Russia and Germany were passed over to Russia without a blink of an eye.




My point exactly, so why stop with only Hitler and not continue to stop Stalin as well? I call this "selective liberation".





By wars end Russia was very depleted in both soldiers and equipment, perfect opportunity for the allies to push them back to Russia if liberation was in fact the point of WW2. The fact was, Russia was no threat to England so to bad for all the other countries who are not England.
------


Estonia and Russia were not allies. Estonia before WW2 already had tensions with Russia and protected its borders from Russian invasion, then ultimately going to war with Russia, twice, and then Germany. The entire time of Russian rule when Russia just took any resources it wanted after WW2 Estonians fought anything Russian and I like to think helped to drain the Russian economy with civil war. Very soon after Estonia was free from Russian rule we destroyed every Russian monument in Estonia. Even today there is tension with Russia here.

Russians are to Estonians what Israelis are to Palestinians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable
------

For me, I think yes. The French gave in to Germany in only days without much of a fight at all, THEN used its military and people to fight as Nazi's while Estonia put up a much better fight even though it as depleted from fighting Russia and THEN unlike the French refused Hitlers demands to become Nazi's and fight for its cause after it was defeated.

There were over a quarter million French, British and Belgium casualties in the weeks of May/June 1940.

Im not sure what history books you are reading but the French were very much on the side of the Allies.

What made the Russians any better than Germany to the Allies?

They were the enemy of the enemy. That is what made them better.

After the fall of Germany, Russia to was weaken, would it not be an opportune time to push Russia back as well where they belong?

Who? ..the Pacific conflict was still in progress and this was the US's priority, had the US attacked the Russians, Russia would ally with Japan. Meanwhile Britain was bankrupt and war weary and also still had an ongoing war in Asia. France had to reorganise its own borders before advancing into others and was in no position to take on the Soviets.

Also the Soviets may of been weakened but they were still considerably stronger than the Allies, as the western Allies struggled its way across the low countries and the Alps, Russia steamrollered its way to Berlin where it proceeded to unleash hell as it waited for the Allies to join the party.

Also after Germany fell Russia and the allies made deals with European countries like they were trading cards as to who got what. Even half of Germany was saved by the allies, but countries like Estonia who fought both Russia and Germany were passed over to Russia without a blink of an eye.

One of the deals of the Yalta conference was that all countries would have free and democratically elections to determine their own future. The problem being the Soviets did not fulfil this part of the deal, yoiu should be blaming them and not the western Allies.

My point exactly, so why stop with only Hitler and not continue to stop Stalin as well? I call this "selective liberation".

Because they were not prepared to enter a war they would most likely loose.

By wars end Russia was very depleted in both soldiers and equipment, perfect opportunity for the allies to push them back to Russia if liberation was in fact the point of WW2.

The western Allies were equally battered and bruised.

...if liberation was in fact the point of WW2.

Liberation from Nazi/Japanese occupation. The bold part is very important.

The fact was, Russia as no threat to England so to bad for all the other countries who are not England.

Russia was a huge threat, such a big threat that it was their action to make a compromise and retain peace, the product of which would become a cold war.

BTW,
Operation Unthinkable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MAgnum9987]

I agree with everything you said. But their were Nazi sympathizers in French government, and when the Nazis took over, they sided with Hitler and supplied troops to them. The French military was used to good effect in the defense of Morocco against the Allies. But french units were not used on European soil

 

[Bananas]

I agree with everything you said. But their were Nazi sympathizers in French government, and when the Nazis took over, they sided with Hitler and supplied troops to them.

~There were Nazi sympathizers in most countries including the US and Britain, the big difference with France though is it was occupied and so the "sympathisers" became collaborators and took the helm as puppets to the Nazi's, the same happened in all occupied territories.

 

[Ilus_Unistus]

~There were Nazi sympathizers in most countries including the US and Britain, the big difference with France though is it was occupied and so the "sympathisers" became collaborators and took the helm as puppets to the Nazi's, the same happened in all occupied territories.

Except Estonia where all refused anything to do with Nazi's, just as other countries as France SHOULD have done. Do you think without the military machines and troops of all the countries the Nazi's took the Nazi's would have had so much success? I have read that over 70% of the Nazi army was not even German. Countries would give in to the Nazi's and fight for them making them stronger, this is where Estonians were set apart from all these other people. And the reward for the courage to tell Hitler no? Give them to the true enemy, Russia.

I do not think you can understand how this hurt Estonia and Estonian's who gave so much in life and its Navy for freedom to be told "sorry about your luck, your Russia's now".

 

[Bananas]

Except Estonia where all refused anything to do with Nazi's, .....

Sorry to burst your bubble but that is simply not true. Many Estonian collaborated with the Nazis, like France there was a puppet government headed by collaborator Hjalmar Mae, they had Nazi divisions made entirely of Estonians, you can look the Omakaitse and their atrocities in line with the Nazis.

Countries would give in to the Nazi's and fight for them making them stronger, this is where Estonians were set apart from all these other people.

Estonians were no different, the only difference here is in the way you learn about your history. Clearly what you have been taught has little by way of historical impartiality in defiance to nationalistic bias.

And the reward for the courage to tell Hitler no? Give them to the true enemy, Russia.

Rewards??? Most countries were fighting for survival not rewards.

...and the true enemy was Hitler, you forget that to the western allies Stalin was an ally.

I do not think you can understand how this hurt Estonia and Estonian's who gave so much in life and its Navy for freedom to be told "sorry about your luck, your Russia's now".

I do not think it was in the politicians interest of the time whether or not Estonian's would feel hurt.

I dont think you realise this was a world war and every country had its self preservation and future to think about. Is it the west's fault that Estonia found itself between two aggressive super powers? ...is it really the west's task to adorn the superman vest to safe guard your freedom?

Of course what happened to Eastern Europe under the Soviets was terrible however you can not blame anybody other than Soviets. To try and make it western responsibility is to try and psychologically blackmail them into feeling guilty.

 

[Ilus_Unistus]

Sorry to burst your bubble but that is simply not true. Many Estonian collaborated with the Nazis, like France there was a puppet government headed by collaborator Hjalmar Mae, they had Nazi divisions made entirely of Estonians, you can look the Omakaitse and their atrocities in line with the Nazis.

This division was made of 38,000 Estonians, this is hardly the stance of the other 1.5 Million at the time. Also this 38,000 were joined to have payback on Russians, a long time enemy. Every country the Nazi's took sent 100.000's to fight as Nazi's, so please do not hold Estonia in this same light. Once the Estonian Military was defeated many EU soldiers destroyed its own military machines left so they would not be used in the name of Nazi's.

I have said this before, the winners of war write the history of it, I know the history of WW2 in Estonia and all I have said is 100% true.

...and the true enemy was Hitler, you forget that to the western allies Stalin was an ally.

Until Germany Russia was and is the enemy of Estonia. Stalin was just as guilty as Hitler for genocide, look up what he did to the Ukraine. Stalin was also one of if not the biggest part of why WW2 was. Even today Russia tries to say WW2 was Poland's fault to better their image... this is joke! To be an ally to a monster like Stalin was no better than to be Hitlers ally at this time. Only Estonia had the courage to do something about both monsters even though it was a losing cause, but at least we knew to call a monster a monster regardless what country he was from.

I dont think you realise this was a world war and every country had its self preservation and future to think about. Is it the west's fault that Estonia found itself between two aggressive super powers? ...is it really the west's task to adorn the superman vest to safe guard your freedom?

Take a look at the world today and you give me that answer...

Of course what happened to Eastern Europe under the Soviets was terrible however you can not blame anybody other than Soviets. To try and make it western responsibility is to try and psychologically blackmail them into feeling guilty.

I do blame Russia, even still today there are Estonians who hate the fact so many Russian live here who did not leave in 1991. I do not try to make anyone feel guilty, but there is much that could have been done that was not. And to be honest when ever I hear an American or British brag that they won WW2 makes me sick, like no one else was there... The USA and Britain were on the winning side, as was Estonia, the difference is the fight for liberation did not stop for us at the end of WW2.
------

So not to completely hijack the other thread.





------


There were over a quarter million French, British and Belgium casualties in the weeks of May/June 1940.

Im not sure what history books you are reading but the French were very much on the side of the Allies.

The majority of French Military were sent to N. Africa, oh and BTW they stopped Allied forces from landing there... guess the French were fighters after all huh? That is in any history book.

 

[Gavik]

What I said before the topic was split:

Russia was able to beat Germany by making a huge come back by the end of the war. Their factories were at peak production and they'd been receiving arms from the west for years. They also had no shortage of man power.

The point of WWII was to defeat the Axis. The Allies couldn't have done this without Russia. The cost was two continents in tatters and nearly 100 million dead. People were war wary, especially England, which was depleted. England, the USSR and US made some pretty horrible back room deals with each other for dividing up the continent and knew what the soviets would do. However it's completely unrealistic to expect America to be able to occupy all of the pacific, Japan and mainland Asia as well as ALL of Europe. It would be equally unrealistic to expect the soviets to sacrifice to much without expecting massive land gains in return.

Why, after so much carnage and loss, should Americans be asked to give the lives of their sons in a third world war for the independence of Estonia? Sometimes that's just how the world spins.

The majority of French Military were sent to N. Africa, oh and BTW they stopped Allied forces from landing there... guess the French were fighters after all huh? That is in any history book.

You're being extremely arrogant. 1.6 million French POWs were taken to Germany to wait out the war. You're also assuming that the French didn't care about the death of their loved ones and brothers in arms, nor the destruction in their country. The Vichy army was with the Axis only in official designation. Why do you think they joined the allies once operation torch began.

Estonia suffered immensely, and they were thrown under the bus for the "greater good" once the war ended. This was wrong. But to claim they had such a special place as the only true resistance to the Nazis is insulting to the tens of millions left dead by the Axis regimes.

 

[Ilus_Unistus]

You're being extremely arrogant. 1.6 million French POWs were taken to Germany to wait out the war. You're also assuming that the French didn't care about the death of their loved ones and brothers in arms, nor the destruction in their country. The Vichy army was with the Axis only in official designation. Why do you think they joined the allies once operation torch began.

I think it was you that asked where I got my History lessons from yes? This was not arrogant to say when the fact is I was correct?

Estonia suffered immensely, and they were thrown under the bus for the "greater good" once the war ended. This was wrong. But to claim they had such a special place as the only true resistance to the Nazis is insulting to the tens of millions left dead by the Axis regimes.

I never said anything of the millions that died fighting the Axis and I never said Estonia was this special place. What I have been saying is was exactly what I put to bold. And you found argument in this.

 

[Gavik]

I think it was you that asked where I got my History lessons from yes?

No.

This was not arrogant to say when the fact is I was correct?

Whatever facts you posted are of questionable accuracy or do not support the argument.

... and I never said Estonia was this special place...

Except when you said:

This division was made of 38,000 Estonians, this is hardly the stance of the other 1.5 Million at the time. Also this 38,000 were joined to have payback on Russians, a long time enemy. Every country the Nazi's took sent 100.000's to fight as Nazi's, so please do not hold Estonia in this same light.

You're trying to diminish their crime of collaboration by saying that the division was smaller than what was conscripted in other nations (which may be completely unfounded) when the fact is this only happened because Estonia had a much smaller population. You also tried to justify their collaboration by claiming it was a good cause (to fight Russia).

Don't try and tell the Allies that they were hypocrites for not "liberating" Estonia when you excuse Nazi collaboration in the name of fighting Russia.

Also:

...Only Estonia had the courage to do something about both monsters even though it was a losing cause...

How is this not trying claim Estonia was morally superior to the rest of Europe/the world?

Furthermore:

Except Estonia where all refused anything to do with Nazi's, just as other countries as France SHOULD have done.

You're claiming not only that Estonia put up the only real resistance to the Nazis, but also that the rest of Europe instantly joined the Axis and never had to suffer for and resistance. This is what I find so insulting, especially considering your earlier comments trying to justify the reasons for the 38,000 Estonian soldiers joining the Nazis.

As I said:

Estonia suffered immensely, and they were thrown under the bus for the "greater good" once the war ended. This was wrong.

However, they were by no means the moral standard of the second world war. And especially when considering how the Soviets treated the rest of their European territory, everywhere from East Germany to Ukraine, Estonia's resistance and hardships don't come out as especially unique.

I understand your frustrations with the Western Allies, but they made a deal with the devil to give Stalin Eastern Europe in order to end the war faster. No one disputes or trivializes your suffering here, but it's hardly realistic to assume the US and Britain could have continued on to liberate eastern Europe from the Russian Monsters. After all, whatever kind of monster Stalin was, the Russian people, the Russian soldiers didn't deserve destruction at the hands of the West (even if the West could have won that war) after all they'd lost in WWII.

 

[Ilus_Unistus]

Originally Posted by Ilus_Unistus
I think it was you that asked where I got my History lessons from yes?

No.

Sorry this was Banana's to say this to me.

You're trying to diminish their crime of collaboration by saying that the division was smaller than what was conscripted in other nations (which may be completely unfounded) when the fact is this only happened because Estonia had a much smaller population. You also tried to justify their collaboration by claiming it was a good cause (to fight Russia).

I do not justify these 38,000 traitors cause. Weather to fight Russia or not is no excuse to join as a Nazi. After the war most of these 38,000 were turned over to Russia for imprisonment with EU support, where most stood trials and were shot. And as I say before 38,000 does not relay how over 1.5 Million Estonians felt while being slaughtered by Nazi's like cattle, men women and children.

Also:
How is this not trying claim Estonia was morally superior to the rest of Europe/the world?

Name 1 other country in the world who fought both monsters of Hitler and Stalin besides Poland. If calling a monster a monster makes Estonia morally superior rather than to join one or the other because "oh no, we can not win" then call it what you wish.

Furthermore:
You're claiming not only that Estonia put up the only real resistance to the Nazis, but also that the rest of Europe instantly joined the Axis and never had to suffer for and resistance.

Please copy and paste where I claimed no other country suffered from Axis resistance.

I think what you are offended by is your own pride in what you call the allies or the history of, how many times did you read in YOUR history books about the Estonian Navy joining the allies? How many times did you read in YOUR history book 25% of ALL Estonians were exterminated, more than any country in WW2? The things I have said you do not accept because of the ways western history tends to "change" the facts to make only the west look good. And this is what offends you, the truth. You or YOUR history books do not see Estonia as part of the allies of WW2 and to me, this is insulting.