[pugsville]

"willfully reducing German strength at sea "? Really, at no stage do Germany reduce it's strength at Sea, the Anglo German Naval agreement allowed Germany top continue expanding it's navy. Though it's hard tro see any agreement being viewed as a restriction on the actions of Nazi Germany.

Sudten Germans and Danzig were just pretexts. Hitler desired the destruction of both Czechoslovakia and Poland.

[Organon]

"willfully reducing German strength at sea "? Really, at no stage do Germany reduce it's strength at Sea, the Anglo German Naval agreement allowed Germany top continue expanding it's navy. Though it's hard tro see any agreement being viewed as a restriction on the actions of Nazi Germany.

Sudten Germans and Danzig were just pretexts. Hitler desired the destruction of both Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Germany's fleet was delimited to 30% of the British. That is called a restriction, pugsville. It was a tradeoff, however, because Hitler wanted an understanding with the British, minimally their neutrality in his eastern foreign policy and ideally, an actual friendship and an alliance with them.

I clearly established what Hitler's ultimate objectives were, which lay in the USSR, at the bottom of the prior page. It is absurd to think that Czecho-Slovakia and Poland were ends in and of themselves. Both of them were preconditions for a much more important, vital and thorough foreign policy.

[pugsville]

While it might have been a theoretical restriction of Naval strength, it was extremely inaccurate to call it "willfully reducing the German Strength at Sea",the Germans were well short of the 30% of RN strength. IT represents carte blanche to increase German Naval Strength. And like any treaty the Hitler Regime signed it was worth nothing.

There was a drive to total dominance in Nazi dogma and Psychology. There was no point they were going to say enough, Germany has enough. They were bent on expansion and dominance, allies were really only subjects. It was not a regime which with any real understanding or commitment could be reached.

[Organon]

While it might have been a theoretical restriction of Naval strength, it was extremely inaccurate to call it "willfully reducing the German Strength at Sea",the Germans were well short of the 30% of RN strength. IT represents carte blanche to increase German Naval Strength. And like any treaty the Hitler Regime signed it was worth nothing.

Well that is precisely what it was.

German capacity for naval strength exceeded the limitations that were imposed on Hitler and the National-Socialist government by the Anglo-German Naval Accords. Accepting them, on Hitler's part, was not cynical manipulation, but part of an effort to acquire English friendship.

There was a drive to total dominance in Nazi dogma and Psychology. There was no point they were going to say enough, Germany has enough. They were bent on expansion and dominance, allies were really only subjects. It was not a regime which with any real understanding or commitment could be reached.

The same could be said with equal force of the systems in the United States of America, the British Empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the postwar jewel of American and British foreign policy, the State of Israel. Each have sparred little to get what they believed they wanted.

Adolf Hitler's goals were, however, far simpler than Soviet or American will to global domination, and more sane than Britain's perpetual balance-of-power politics which dragged her into two wars. They were: Reuniting lost Germans and territories and ultimately confronting the USSR.

Last, regarding what appears to be your overarching point that Hitler knew no loyalties except where they concretely gave him advantages, I thoroughly disagree. Hitler was bonded to Mussolini on a personal and certainly not a geopolitical or military level. Italy was a liability. However, from a personal point of view, it is to Hitler's credit that he showed unbending dedication to ally that had, for example, supported him in Anschluss and gave moral support to an otherwise isolated German government. In the conduct of the war, Italy actually hurt Germany's efforts. It is not inconceivable that Hitler would have offered a British leader the same stability in cooperation and unbending support if he could renounce blind opposition to German foreign policies which, once again, did not intrinsically threaten British, French or American interests, and were directed primarily at the Soviet Union.

[Section Leader]

There was a drive to total dominance in Nazi dogma and Psychology. There was no point they were going to say enough, Germany has enough. They were bent on expansion and dominance, allies were really only subjects. It was not a regime which with any real understanding or commitment could be reached.

I have little doubt that the Soviet Union would have defeated the Reich no matter what, it was just a question of what state Germany would be in at the end (either a bombed-out ruin or beaten and bruised but still more or less on it's feet). Hitler probably wasn't going to live very much longer (he probably had Parkinson's among other health problems), and Hitler's successor was either going to be more moderate and willing to negotiate on genuine terms with the USSR or would end up tearing the Reich apart.

[Organon]

I have little doubt that the Soviet Union would have defeated the Reich no matter what, it was just a question of what state Germany would be in at the end (either a bombed-out ruin or beaten and bruised but still more or less on it's feet).

It depends on when a war with the USSR broke out and the extent of assistance rendered to either Germany or the USSR and by whom.

If there had been no Anglo-French war guarantee to Poland and no hint of a declaration of war on Germany if a local conflict erupted, regardless of how Poland and Germany worked out their differences, it is probable that Germany would have struck against the Soviet Union in early 1940, possibly by May. The timing of such an attack minus the focus of a war with the West, and assuming the absence of subsequent Lend-Lease Aid which was so pivotal to the USSR, which in the real-world scenario had the full political and economic backing of the West, would be very different.

Most decisively, an early 1940 scenario would be a militarily very different scenario.

I do not care for exaggerated views of Soviet or Russian strength. The USSR that confronted Germany in summer 1941 had at its disposal not only countless non-European groups of people but the intensifying aid in economic and political terms of the British Empire and the United States. The Soviet Union of summer 1941, or the power that Britain and the United States helped it become by 1945, was not the Soviet Union of late 1939, and certainly not the hobbling creature Stalin terrorized it into becoming both during and after the Holodomor, Great Famine and Great Purge.

It is important to keep in mind continual Soviet build-up, especially after the Soviet Union gained time to intensify its buildup with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. If Germany undertook a campaign in the USSR in early 1940, it would have contended with a Red Army that in terms of troops, planes and artillery, were nearly one half the strength that they were to be over a year later, in summer 1941. Personnel alone were at about 2.5 million 1939, as opposed to nearly 6 million in mid-1941. A German campaign that occurs in early 1940 without a war in the West is a completely different dynamic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ ... eparations

In this scenario, it is not obvious to me that the Soviet Union would have won.

The perspective I have been arguing for in this thread is that British friendless toward Germany was in the interests of the British Empire. Given that in fact historically the British Empire aligned itself with the Soviet Union, it is not inconceivable that it could have not simply have taken a position of neutrality but aligned itself with Germany against the Soviet Union. British economic and political support for Germany in a campaign that begins in early 1940, with everything I mention above, not only appears to me to increase the likelihood of Soviet defeat but effectively assures it.

[fuser]

^

eh, no. You have just overlooked facts which doesn't comply with your fantasy basically.

some points :

Germany was also dependent on war booty from western Europe, in fact much of the mechanization of Germany in 1941 became possible only after the conquest of western Europe.

No experience from western campaigns.

Its hard to imagine that Anglo French alliance would sit idle while German Tanks are rolling in Russian steppe.

Most of German tanks are PI and PII in 1940.

How/why would historical allies join in with Germany in 1940, specially Finland (no winter war) and Romania (vienna dictate, bessarabia)

it is probable that Germany would have struck against the Soviet Union in early 1940, possibly by May.

There is no historical evidence suggesting that Germany could had attacked in 1940

The timing of such an attack minus the focus of a war with the West

And still it would be foolish and irrational for Germany to leave her western borders unguarded.

and assuming the absence of subsequent Lend-Lease Aid

Which was irrelevant in 1941 and most parts of 1942, the only time Germany could had pulled of any sort of victory.

If Germany undertook a campaign in the USSR in early 1940, it would have contended with a Red Army that in terms of troops, planes and artillery,that at that point in time were nearly one half the strength that they were to be over a year later, in summer 1941

Germans had total air superiority in otl too, Soviet Union's pre war army was destroyed in otl too, what mattered was six million men coming on the frontline between june 22 and december of 1941, how these things are making any difference in otl?
Also, in 1940, only nominal amount of soviet troops were stationed at the border compared to 1941, so you can remove the great encirclements after border battles of 1941 in this scenario.

The perspective I have been arguing for in this thread is that British friendless toward Germany was in the interests of the British Empire.

A Germany controlling European Russia was never in interest of British Empire.

[Organon]

^

eh, no. You have just overlooked facts which doesn't comply with your fantasy basically.

I never constructed a fantasy, fuser. I provided a moral and political alternative for a Britain that had to make choices in 1939. My position is that they should minimally have remained neutral, strictly out of their own self-interest. However, I view it in the interests of the British Empire that the primary power propagandizing against European colonialism, the Soviet Union, should have vanished from the Earth.

A Germany controlling European Russia was never in interest of British Empire.

A Communist is in a suspicious position when he tries to talk about the self-interest of any great nation.

[fuser]

I never constructed a fantasy, fuser.

By fantasy, I didn't meant what you were saying about British Empire but your fantasy regarding a "1940 Barbarossa" which will somehow be much more effective than the one in otl.

A Communist is in a suspicious position when he tries to talk about the self-interest of any great nation.

My political affiliation has nothing to do with the point that was made. The point remains you are yet to show how an European Russia effectively in German control was in British interest and not opposite of that, irrespective of my ideology. (that was just one big cop out from your part basically.)

[Rich]

I shall return to more technical arguments later, but I was just watching some of the old news reels. Even as a market orientated leftie liberal individualist I can see the attraction of the Nazis. They certainly outclassed New Labour and Cool Britannia when it came to putting on a show. But as British person, its not the extermination of the Jews, the tyranny over the Czechs or the destruction of the Polish elite that is the ultimate block. Its not even Nazi Germany's most bestial of crimes that will leave them ever in the annal of depravity: high taxes, printing money, and business red tape. Its the moustache. How can any true Brit allow Hitler to triumph with that moustache? On aesthetic grounds alone, he had to be stopped, what ever the cost

[Organon]

My political affiliation has nothing to do with the point that was made.

All and good for you.

My political affiliation has everything to do with any point that I make, because it is an extension of what I am. I do not for a moment pretend anything to the contrary.

[fuser]

^ what are you talking about, earth doesn't become flat because of someone's political affiliation, gravitational constant doesn't change because of political affiliation, Germany doesn't becomes ww2 winner because of political affiliation.

There are points (most of them) which holds on irrespective of someone's political affiliation, I would be dumbfounded if its a revelation for you.
My question is pretty simple "How European Russia being under control of Germany is beneficial for British Empire as per your original claim?"

Now do you have a answer?

Edit : Basically you can't make grandeur claims and expect to not being questioned by saying, that 'that claim was ideologically motivated'.
This is such a funnily ridiculous excuse, I am still chuckling.

[Organon]

^ what are you talking about, earth doesn't become flat because of someone's political affiliation, gravitational constant doesn't change because of political affiliation, Germany doesn't becomes ww2 winner because of political affiliation.

There are points (most of them) which holds on irrespective of someone's political affiliation, I would be dumbfounded if its a revelation for you.
My question is pretty simple "How European Russia being under control of Germany is beneficial for British Empire as per your original claim?"

Now do you have a answer?

Edit : Basically you can't make grandeur claims and expect to not being questioned by saying, that that claim was ideologically motivated. This is such a funnily ridiculous excuse, I am still chuckling.

Go read some Marx, 'Fuser'.

[fuser]

Yeah, of course. by the way, it would also be an ideologically motivated post, right?

But no answers yet, so am I to assume all of your points were pulled out of someone's ass or is this is what your ideology about, making things up out of thin air?

[pugsville]

A large factor in the initial success of Barbarossa was the ludicrous positioning and readiness of the Red Army. Without a war in the west the Red Army would have been in a defensive posture. A lot of the Problems would not have been fixed, as there were a myriad of problems with Command control within the Red Army. But the Red Army is a reasonable defensive posture would have been a much tougher proposition than it was in june 1941. The German benefits from the conquest of France and the Nazi-Soviet pact in resources was not insignificant.

[Organon]

The point remains you are yet to show how an European Russia effectively in German control was in British interest and not opposite of that, irrespective of my ideology. (that was just one big cop out from your part basically.)

A National-Socialist Germany in control of northwestern Eurasia would have been in British interests in several ways, and let us pretend for the moment that in this scenario Britain and France have either remained neutral or else even actively aided Germany, but in any event, the USSR is defeated:

a. It would have removed the fulcrum of world Communism, which was seated in a multinational empire and that had declared as its aim the economic ruin of the major European powers.

b. In its place would be a power under the government of an individual that, as I have argued very strongly, admired the British Empire, and wanted it conserved on racial-cultural grounds.

c. Apart from a. and b., which are already significant, it would have opened up extensive economic vistas to Britain, France and America. While Hitler would have pursued a policy of Germanic colonization, I suspect he would have welcomed British economic investment in the area while colonization proceeded.

The continued existence of the Soviet Union constituted a major ideological and geopolitical threat to the European empires, because of not only its constant anti-colonialist agitation but also because of any issue it could exploit, like World War II, to advance itself territorially at the expense of Europeans.

The only real beneficiaries of the postwar Soviet Union were the leaders of indigenous anti-colonialist movements in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Am I not right on this point, El Fuser? It certainly has not been to the benefit of the people subjected to those movements, as Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and of all places, China and Cambodia, historically attest. Hitler was motivated by a desire for living space, but removing the threat of the USSR would have reaped great benefits to colonialist Europe and the world.

A large factor in the initial success of Barbarossa was the ludicrous positioning and readiness of the Red Army. Without a war in the west the Red Army would have been in a defensive posture. A lot of the Problems would not have been fixed, as there were a myriad of problems with Command control within the Red Army. But the Red Army is a reasonable defensive posture would have been a much tougher proposition than it was in june 1941. The German benefits from the conquest of France and the Nazi-Soviet pact in resources was not insignificant.

Just to address your point and also a similar one made by fuser, it appears to me that my points about the Soviet Union's fluctuating military strength are being ignored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_ ... eparations

The source of the statistics on Soviet military strength in 1939 and in 1941: http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/11.html

Run it through a translator, if need be.

Soviet military strength as of January 1, 1939: 131 divisions, 2,485,000 personnel, 55,800 guns and mortars, 7,700 aircraft.

Soviet military strength as of June 22, 1941: 316 divisions, 5,774,000 personnel, 117,600 guns and mortars, 18,700 aircraft.

I have also argued in this thread that the principle foreign policy aim of Germany was confrontation with and destruction of the political and military basis of the Soviet Union. Therefore, the war in the West distracted Hitler from his real goal, and while it is not necessarily positive Germany would have undertaken her campaign in early 1940, if there had a) been no war with the West and b) either an alliance with Poland (in the absence of a British war guarantee) or a campaign in Poland, anyway, in August 1939 (again in the absence of a British war guarantee) would have entailed that there would have been no Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, because this in fact was designed to guard Germany's rear while it dealt with the war imposed on it by the West. In this scenario, a confrontation with the Soviet Union appears to be more likely to occur, earlier on.

Now, factor in what I have argued should have been the case: British friendliness and support for Germany. This would have ameliorated, assuming it was relevant, benefits of what you have called "booty" from the West, in terms of economic support. Low-interest loans, investment, and asymmetrical aid to Germany would have considerably strengthened her position. Now, given the facts I have pointed out about the state of the Soviet military, we are talking about a situation in early 1940 that for the Soviet Union was far less enviable than the situation she was to be in well over a year later. In actual history, Stalin had used those two years from Sept. 1939 to June 1941 to literally double the size of the Red Army. Ignore it if you like, but a Germany, especially an Anglo-British alliance, confronting the USSR in early 1940 is in a far better position.

Also, in real history, America became involved in the European war only because Britain had. In my scenario, assume a British determination to see through a European campaign against the USSR. In addition to British assistance, it is possible that France, in the face of British diplomacy, might aid the campaign, and, just as happened historically, over time American sympathies, resting with the British, might have crystallized in the form of US assistance to Britain and her allies. In any event, British friendless would have been decisive.

Yeah, of course. by the way, it would also be an ideologically motivated post, right?

You ignored my original use of Soviet military figures. Any position that does not seem to accept the inevitability of Soviet victory appears to be a "fantasy", to you, so you figure it out.

[fuser]

It would have removed the fulcrum of world Communism,

Which happened in otl as well.

In its place would be a power under the government of an individual that, as I have argued very strongly, admired the British Empire, and wanted it conserved on racial-cultural grounds.

So, you mean British Empire should had been dependent on one person's will? What if Hitler's successor didn't shared that view, what is the long term guarantee for British empire against this obviously very aggressive super power just across the channel.

I suspect he would have welcomed British economic investment in the area while colonization proceeded.

Other than that there was no lack of market for British empire and why now USA would also suddenly will endorse this colonization or better extermination process? Why would British Empire would want to invest in a war torn countryside with an extermination policy and guerrilla warfare being rampant?

it could exploit, like World War II, to advance itself territorially at the expense of Europeans.

And Germany was expanding at the expense of what?

but removing the threat of the USSR would have reaped great benefits to colonialist Europe and the world.

Eh, first of all please don't include the world, then Soviet Union or not, "colonialism" was doomed, the best example being Algeria.

The source of the statistics on Soviet military strength in 1939 and in 1941

Oh, please don't play number game, selective use of data can lead to anything, what you think heer's number were on 1st of January 1939?

Germany would have undertaken her campaign in early 1940, if there had a) been no war with the West

Meaning no mechanization, no experience and no war booty for German Army, how is that going to help? The war booty was immense and vital for running German war machine and you have just disregarded that.

either an alliance with Poland (in the absence of a British war guarantee) or a campaign in Poland, anyway, in August 1939 (again in the absence of a British war guarantee) would have entailed that there would have been no Molotov-Ribbentrop pac

Meaning no Romania, no Finland on German side which constituted around 25% of Axis Army during 1941, again how is that going to help.

Also, these points had already been made and repetition won't give them more weight.

in terms of economic support. Low-interest loans, investment, and asymmetrical aid to Germany would have considerably strengthened her position.

How much such support British Empire you think really could had provided or you just typed in some random economical terms. Why would they do such thing even being friendly with Germans, on the guarantee that Germany will definitely win and share the spoil, how would that go with Britain's populace?

You ignored my original use of Soviet military figures.

No, I didn't, I put those figures into perspective, the one that is ignoring is you, as you have totally ignored all the points made and just repeating what you already had said.

[Organon]

So, you mean British Empire should had been dependent on one person's will? What if Hitler's successor didn't shared that view, what is the long term guarantee for British empire against this obviously very aggressive super power just across the channel.

No, I mean that the British Empire had shared racial interests with Germany.

Other than that there was no lack of market for British empire and why now USA would also suddenly will endorse this colonization or better extermination process? Why would British Empire would want to invest in a war torn countryside with an extermination policy and guerrilla warfare being rampant?

The United States has for some time now enjoyed feigning guilt for its own colonial origins and this partly informs it, though it should not, and also, any honest observation about German intentions in the USSR to this effect would yield an obvious return in terms of interests for our race as a whole.

Finally, Britain and the United States helped Stalin murder, imprison, and relocate millions of people, and through their aid facilitated his own opposition to guerrilla war against "anti-Soviet" collaborators, so it is not outside the realm of reason and logic that it could have provided support to Germany.

Eh, first of all please don't include the world, then Soviet Union or not, "colonialism" was doomed, the best example being Algeria.

That is Marxist hogwash. In 1939, the British Empire was still a great colonial power, and knew itself to be such, and a realistic assessment of its short and long term interests would have made it realize that no lesser nation, such as Poland, and no Communist state, such as the Soviet Union, was worth going to war over. It should have withheld a war guarantee to Poland, encouraged her to ally with Germany, and then actively economically assisted a war with the Soviet Union, using any influence with France and the United States to ensure that no aid would flow to Germany's enemies.

I am aware that you Marxists like to tell us people of European descent that race is a fiction, even as you vie for the interests of people inferior to us, but you do not have me fooled.

Furthermore, that video clip featuring Churchill's recollection of his meeting recounts the desire of the German government to use its resources to bolster the interests of the Empire. I am not going to pretend that your torturous Jewish-Marxist abstractions actually carry the world of yesterday into a sea of anti-colonialism. It was not inevitable, and here we have a German official vocalizing his government's desire to help the British Empire resist any future tides from her subject peoples.

Oh, please don't play number game, selective use of data can lead to anything

It is not a number game. My argument is that a German campaign in the USSR in 1940, absent a war in the West, changes the odds in Germany's favor, and that British support increases the odds.

Meaning no mechanization, no experience and no war booty for German Army, how is that going to help? The war booty was immense and vital for running German war machine and you have just disregarded that.

The German army defeated the unprepared French army in a matter of weeks, with only the campaign in Poland immediately behind it. Furthermore, my ideal scenario entails economic, moral and political support from the British Empire, which would not have been insignificant.

Why would they do such thing even being friendly with Germans

That is a good question to ask in regard to their friendliness toward the Soviet Union.

The British Empire had a moral duty grounded in race to support Germany, and instead it chose to bolster the interests of the Soviet Union at the expense of itself and Europe as a whole.

[fuser]

I mean that the British Empire had shared racial interests with Germany.

This is absolutely not what you had said originally, but besides what are these shared racial interests?

Britain and the United States helped Stalin murder, imprison, and relocate millions of people

Oh, please spare me these false tears about murders and imprisonment, specially coming from someone who is a nazi. Beside can you proof this bizarre assertion of yours that UK and USA were helping Soviet Union in such enterprise?

the realm of reason and logic that it could have provided support to Germany.

There is no logic in your post.

That is Marxist hogwash

And that proves it all, right?

I am aware that you Marxists like to tell us people of European descent that race is a fiction,

No, we tell the whole humankind that its a fiction.

we have a German official uttering

Officers in different countries utter a wide range of things, if we start believing everyone of them, I don't think it would be good for our sanity.

It is not a number game. My argument is that a German campaign in the USSR in 1940, absent a war in the West

Of course you are playing number game, your whole argument was based on that.

The German army defeated the unprepared French army in a matter of weeks, with only the campaign in Poland immediately behind it.

First of all France is not Soviet Union, then you are still to expand on how Germany is going to do without the French help which virtually mechanized heer for Barbarossa (you do know what mechanization means and why its critical for a campaign against Russia, right?) or how lack of various German allies are going to be favorable to Germany.

my ideal scenario entails economic, moral and political support from the British Empire, which would not have been insignificant.

"Ideal scenario" means nothing, even when going to an a historical route, you are yet to suggest how and why these help would materialize and to what extent considering various parameters that I already posted in my last post.

That is a good question to ask in regard to their friendliness toward the Soviet Union

Irrelevant, you just coped out of the question.

[pugsville]

Polish response to German demands was not based on British or other guarantees or statements. The Poles were very stiff necked and stubborn in this period, and viewed any accession to German demands (no matter how reasonable or minor) as part of a process which would lead to the destruction of the Polish state. German or Russian troops on Polish territory would have been viewed as part of conquest. The removal of the Danzig corridor would have left Poland imports subject to to the whims of Germany. This was unacceptable to the Poles. The Poles would not have agreed to any of Germany;s demands regardless of the attitude of Britain. The Poles viewed everything as a direct assault on their existence. Leaving Poland to Nazi Germany's tender mercies involved the wholesale starvation, mass killing and destruction of Poland. The Nazis started right in on these polices the moment they were in control of Poland. Any talk of "Alliance" between Poland and Germany is shockingly stupid, The Nazis fully intended to destroy not just the Polish state but the Polish people.

The Nazis Ideology was expansionist. It was the Strong prey on the weak. If Germany had successfully conquered Russia and had the resources to become much stronger they would have been other targets. The Nazis would have started another war, they glorified war, promoted race struggle where there were only victors and losers. There is no question that Hitler's Nazi regime would have been on going threat to peace and security of any nation within it'd reach. The Nazi Ideological did not allow for 'Allies' there were subjects who did what they were told, they was no such thing as equals.

With a Massive armed Germany, all countries were forced to arm. Coming out of the depression European rearmament was driven by German armament. Hitler's Germany had lead tp massive defense spending increases in France and Britain. Given the massive scale of German armament, France and Britain had to re-arm. Germany was virtually on war footing spending much more of GDP on military than Britain and France, and this was going to be on going.

While the Soviet Union had under Stalin and appalling record on human rights and was mass-murdering on truly vast scale (though if the the Regime ever got to rule Russia they would have been much much worse than even Stalin) Stalin and the Soviets were mostly focused internally. Russia was not regarded as a real threat, was happening elsewhere as opposed to the Next door like Germany and information was so direct. Soviet Russia was paranoid and defensive and than megalomaniac and expansionist. Both were pretty much evil by the one was much more likely top start trouble on a ongoing basis.

.