Better to attack sooner than later.
That's one argument. The other is that while the USSR would have had more divisions to hurl at Europe, so to would Germany AND Poland to defend it. Due to the conquest of Poland, most of its manpower was rendered completely useless in the German war effort. Worse still, vast amounts of resources had to be diverted from the war effort just to maintain order. In 1941, the USSR had nearly 5 million soldiers in its army. Over 300 divisions.
Germany had less than that. And a vast amount of men had to be "wasted" against non-Soviet targets. If the USSR attacked Poland in 1941, then first they'd need to get through the very large and mechanized Polish army (which already had experience defeating the communists in 1920). Within days, German soldiers would be racing to the Vistula river to halt the Soviet advance. The combined might of Germany and Poland would be more than a match for the poorly motivated communist serfs.
It is the truth. Calling something (((bluepilled))) doesn't make it false. Find me some evidence of Poland invading Germany or come up with a real argument. Because if you attempted to convert normies with a weak argument like that, anyone with even a cursory understanding of history would just laugh at you and use your mistake to innoculate others against the much more important truths about the holohoax and the jews.
It is the truth. Calling something (((bluepilled))) doesn't make it false. Find me some evidence of Poland invading Germany or come up with a real argument
You're real? Polish troops were openly violating Germany's frontier. USA was openly harassing German assets on the seas, some of them even sunk iirc. Western Poles were openly hunting down Germans, torturing and killing those who couldn't fleet or were not aware of what was coming for them, all this ending in casualties above 50,000 men, women and children. And "Judea" pompously declared war on Germany in '33 from the comfy boudoirs of New York, aiming for a boycott of German resources.
I guess it really depends on what you want to say what defines "starting a war."
[–] 17599561? ago
Poland started World War 2 by attacking the radio station at Gleiwitz. Everyone knows this…
[–] 17599562? ago
Just like how the Viet Cong attacked the US in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Somehow I don't buy that.
>>13010171
Are you talking about the radio-station false flag?
Yes but the USA was not Poland and that was after the war began.
I've spent a lot of time looking for evidence of this and most of the incidents happened after the war began. Horrible, certainly. But if we're going to start pointing fingers at nations that practiced ethnic cleansing and denouncing them… well, was there even one righteous nation?
Yeah and like America, "Judea" is not Poland.
Oh jeez, well if we want to play loose and liberal with what "began" the war, we could go back and say that WW2 was really a continuation of WW1 which was a continuation of the Franco-Prussian war which was a part of the unification of Germany which was also tied to the nationalist revolutions of the 1840s/50s which was a result of the Napoleonic wars which was a result of the Revolution of France which was a result of the American revolution which was a result of the 7 Years War which was a result of the War of Austrian Succession which was a result of War of Spanish Succession which was a result of the Nine Years War which was in large part a result of the 30 Years War which was a result of Protestantism which was a result of the corruption of the Catholic Church which was a….
Honestly, we could go back to the fucking Roman Empire and beyond if you like. How far back do you want to go?