[litwin]

If Stalin - Hitler´s Devils' Alliance held, Could these 2 Asiatic (1) despots conquer the Europe (Northern Africa?) ? and What USA and Britain ´d do?


The Devils' Alliance: Hitler's Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941 ...
https://www.theguardian.com › books › aug › devils-all...



6 Aug 2014 — Seventy-five years ago, on 23 August 1939, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia stunned the world by announcing that they had concluded a ...


Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki

Unofficially it has also been referred to as the Hitler–Stalin Pact, Nazi–Soviet Pact or Nazi–Soviet Alliance (although it was not a formal alliance). Its clauses ...
‎Background · ‎Consequences in Finland... · ‎Soviet–German relations · ‎Aftermath
You've visited this page many times. Last visit: 5/27/20


German–Soviet Axis talks - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki

German–Soviet Axis talks occurred in October and November 1940 concerning the Soviet ... Stalin proposed a toast to Hitler, and Stalin and Soviet Foreign Minister ... He had not yet abandoned the possibility of other political outcomes and still talked of a "great worldwide coalition that stretched from Yokohama to Spain", ...


(1)


"Both Hitler and Himmler had a soft spot for Islam. Hitler several times fantasized that, if the Saracens had not been stopped at the Battle of Tours, Islam would have spread through the European continent—and that would have been a good thing, since “Jewish Christianity” wouldn’t have gone on to poison Europe. Christianity doted on weakness and suffering, while Islam extolled strength, Hitler believed. Himmler in a January 1944 speech called Islam “a practical and attractive religion for soldiers,” with its promise of paradise and beautiful women for brave martyrs after their death. “This is the kind of language a soldier understands,” Himmler gushed."

[JohnRawls]

If Stalin - Hitler´s Devils' Alliance held, Could these 2 Asiatic (1) despots conquer the Europe (Northern Africa?) ? and What USA and Britain ´d do?


The Devils' Alliance: Hitler's Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941 ...
https://www.theguardian.com › books › aug › devils-all...



6 Aug 2014 — Seventy-five years ago, on 23 August 1939, Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia stunned the world by announcing that they had concluded a ...


Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki

Unofficially it has also been referred to as the Hitler–Stalin Pact, Nazi–Soviet Pact or Nazi–Soviet Alliance (although it was not a formal alliance). Its clauses ...
‎Background · ‎Consequences in Finland... · ‎Soviet–German relations · ‎Aftermath
You've visited this page many times. Last visit: 5/27/20


German–Soviet Axis talks - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki

German–Soviet Axis talks occurred in October and November 1940 concerning the Soviet ... Stalin proposed a toast to Hitler, and Stalin and Soviet Foreign Minister ... He had not yet abandoned the possibility of other political outcomes and still talked of a "great worldwide coalition that stretched from Yokohama to Spain", ...


(1)


"Both Hitler and Himmler had a soft spot for Islam. Hitler several times fantasized that, if the Saracens had not been stopped at the Battle of Tours, Islam would have spread through the European continent—and that would have been a good thing, since “Jewish Christianity” wouldn’t have gone on to poison Europe. Christianity doted on weakness and suffering, while Islam extolled strength, Hitler believed. Himmler in a January 1944 speech called Islam “a practical and attractive religion for soldiers,” with its promise of paradise and beautiful women for brave martyrs after their death. “This is the kind of language a soldier understands,” Himmler gushed."

Not likely because:

1) This topic doesn't understand Hitlers and his generals world view at the time. Hitler was an autarc so his mindset was different from a capitalist or communist. On top of that there was the question of ideological racial purity. Long story short Hitler thought that exporting production to the Soviet Union is not feasable because Soviet Union then build the factories and will not need to buy machine goods from Germany. Meaning that the SU will block the exports of oil,gas and other natual resources that Germany needed. So Germany didn't really want peace with the USSR due to Hitlers economic views and his racial views. Then there was the view of his generals who said that Russia is going to be the same as France and will take 4 months at worst case. Why wouldn't they say it. In historic perspective in WW1, Germans never could break the Western front while they managed to beat the Russians. Now they have decimated the Western front so how could Russia resist?

2) Soviet Union didn't necessarily want peace with Germany either. By all accounts long term Stalins plan was to attack the Germans somewhere in 43 or 44 when they would exhaust themselves against the allies.

So there was no chance that they would conquer the world because both ultimately wanted to fuck each other. Stalin was just smarter about it but got caught offguard and in 1941 Germany mowed down the Soviet Army. After that it was pretty much stable and ultimately combined effort of USSR, Uk and US won the war due to them having far more resources, people and so on.

[litwin]

Not likely because:

1) This topic doesn't understand Hitlers and his generals world view at the time. Hitler was an autarc so his mindset was different from a capitalist or communist. On top of that there was the question of ideological racial purity. Long story short Hitler thought that exporting production to the Soviet Union is not feasable because Soviet Union then build the factories and will not need to buy machine goods from Germany. Meaning that the SU will block the exports of oil,gas and other natual resources that Germany needed. So Germany didn't really want peace with the USSR due to Hitlers economic views and his racial views. Then there was the view of his generals who said that Russia is going to be the same as France and will take 4 months at worst case. Why wouldn't they say it. In historic perspective in WW1, Germans never could break the Western front while they managed to beat the Russians. Now they have decimated the Western front so how could Russia resist?

2) Soviet Union didn't necessarily want peace with Germany either. By all accounts long term Stalins plan was to attack the Germans somewhere in 43 or 44 when they would exhaust themselves against the allies.

So there was no chance that they would conquer the world because both ultimately wanted to fuck each other. Stalin was just smarter about it but got caught offguard and in 1941 Germany mowed down the Soviet Army. After that it was pretty much stable and ultimately combined effort of USSR, Uk and US won the war due to them having far more resources, people and so on.

"Hitler was an autarc so his mindset was different from a capitalist or communist. " you are wrong he was just a koba´s copy cat

[Doug64]

Nazism was racial socialism, so it had more in common with Communism than Capitalism. Beyond that, to condense @JohnRawls’s answer, the problem with this thread’s question is that for the “alliance” to hold, Hitler and Stalin would have had to not be Hitler and Stalin, one of them was bound to attack the other sooner or later. It’s like the question of whether Napoleon would have been able to hold his empire together and pass it on to his heir if he hadn’t invaded Russia—very possibly, but that would require that Napoleon not be Napoleon.

[Skynet]

Hitler had no oil for mobile warfare. Soviet Union could provide this commodity. I think if Hitler did not attack Stalin he would have won WW2. Europe before WW2 controled big parts of the planet (Colonial Empires), by conquering France and Britain Hitler would have the biggest Empire the Planet has seen.

80% of German soldiers got killled by the Red Army.

[fuser]

In ww1 may be if all the stars aligned and shit, may be Germany could had successfully invaded the British Isles, highly unlikely though. But in WW2, there was a better chance of literal portal of hell opening in English Channel than Germany crossing it or defeating British Empire in any meaningful way.

[ThirdTerm]

The Devils' Alliance: Hitler's Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941

I remember reading this book about five years ago, which was one of the last English books I bought at a bookstore. It was a non-aggression pact meant to protect Soviet Russia from a Nazi invasion. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain made it plain that Britain would be obliged to come to the aid of Poland in the event of German invasion, while Stalin was interested in dividing Poland into spheres of influence. Poland east of the line formed by the Narew, Vistula, and San rivers would fall under the Soviet sphere of influence, according to a secret protocol of the pact. Neville Chamberlain made a grave mistake when he decided to protect Poland as the only great power that was capable to do so. Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy is now widely discredited as a policy of weakness but it was a practical move. Nazi Germany would have been liquidated by the Soviet Union in the long run with or without the D-Day invasion to support Soviet troops on the ground. We tend to forget the fact that the Soviet Union was a Western ally that was instrumental in the overall surrender of Nazi Germany to the Allies.

[Politics_Observer]

@ThirdTerm

Actually, I would say that Stalin made a mistake trying to sign some sort of non-aggression pact with Hitler. It was a mistake for Chamberlain to engage in a policy of appeasement but he was right to finally draw the line at Poland. Stalin was a narcissistic sociopath who was a very incompetent leader. Lucky for Stalin, Hitler was pretty incompetent too. Besides invading Russia is a mistake anyways, especially during the Russian winter.

You see a lot of people who are not qualified in power. A lot but not all have mental problems and have this need to fill a void in their souls with power. It's everywhere you go. Stalin and Hitler were these leaders who had no business in power and had serious mental issues. Stalin was abused as a kid and Hitler was gassed during World War I and suffered from those chemical weapons wounds, PTSD and shell shock.

Aside from that, because Stalin was incompetent and paranoid as well as a narcissistic sociopath, who foolishly trusted Hitler (to some degree) by signing a non-aggression pact, he got invaded. Really, he brought that invasion onto his own country and it's unfortunate because millions of people paid the price for Stalin's incompetence and Hitler's foolishness. But that's politicians for you. Stalin purged his best officers from his Army prior to the Nazi invasion and he didn't have competent officers leading the army when he got invaded. This in turn led to massive Soviet casualties. It was nothing more than one big shit show. So goes, the old Russian proverb: "The fish rots starting from the head."

[Potemkin]

@ThirdTerm

Actually, I would say that Stalin made a mistake trying to sign some sort of non-aggression pact with Hitler. It was a mistake for Chamberlain to engage in a policy of appeasement but he was right to finally draw the line at Poland. Stalin was a narcissistic sociopath who was a very incompetent leader. Lucky for Stalin, Hitler was pretty incompetent too. Besides invading Russia is a mistake anyways, especially during the Russian winter.

You see a lot of people who are not qualified in power. A lot but not all have mental problems and have this need to fill a void in their souls with power. It's everywhere you go. Stalin and Hitler were these leaders who had no business in power and had serious mental issues. Stalin was abused as a kid and Hitler was gassed during World War I and suffered from those chemical weapons wounds, PTSD and shell shock.

Aside from that, because Stalin was incompetent and paranoid as well as a narcissistic sociopath, who foolishly trusted Hitler (to some degree) by signing a non-aggression pact, he got invaded. Really, he brought that invasion onto his own country and it's unfortunate because millions of people paid the price for Stalin's incompetence and Hitler's foolishness. But that's politicians for you. Stalin purged his best officers from his Army prior to the Nazi invasion and he didn't have competent officers leading the army when he got invaded. This in turn led to massive Soviet casualties. It was nothing more than one big shit show. So goes, the old Russian proverb: "The fish rots starting from the head."

Who won the Second World War, @Politics_Observer?

[fuser]

I think what @Politics_Observer is coming up with is classic western cold war era narrative. Also its not correct.

1. Chamberlin was no pacifist going for appeasement, he was a shrewd politician and in Britain's success in WW2, his role was very important. It was he who bought time and started rearmament in Britain, of course central Europe paid the price, but a price that British empire from their pov were justified to pay. The only way to stop Germany during Munich was to attack it and Britain was in no shape to do so on its own. They needed USSR which has guaranteed Czechoslovakia's independence and was ready to come to her aid. But the problem was that Red Army would had needed right to passage from Poland which Poland was not keen onto neither Britain was keen onto this plan because for them that would had resulted in a Soviet dominated Central Europe, a nightmare for them. Thats why they waited so that they could sit on the peace table from a position of strength. Now if that pan out well for them or not is a different matter. But appeasement was born not out of some naive idealism but shrewd pragmatism. OTOH it can be argued that with Churchill's policies Britain had to satisfy with a subservient role to USA in geopolitical landscape.

2. MR pact was absolutely crucial in the defense of USSR and defeat of Germany. After talks with western allies broke down even after repeated pleas from USSR to form an united front against Germany, there was a real threat that Germany will target USSR next, and it could had been very much true. The issue was no one had predicted such a quick defeat of France, USSR's planners thought that MR pact has given them 3-4 years of rebuilding time and they fully expected an attack. This was the reason why between MR pact and Barbarossa, Red Army almost tripled in size, they were doing nothing but preparing for the war, Stalin or any one for that matter didn't trusted Hitler. And finally without MR pact, Germany starts their invasion of USSR with borders being further 200-300km east rather than fighting and loosing men while marching that distance, a factor that did helped immensely in the war effort.

Finally although I admit I agree that you don't reach highest level of power without being some sort of psychological issues, I abhor this pop psychology of, "his daddy beat him so now he is evil". Have you looked at the public school system of Britain in 19th and early 20th century, if that would had been the criteria, most of the British politicians high command should had been barred from having any position of power.

[Politics_Observer]

@fuser

I have to disagree. I think some of what is being peddled here is some of the bias from across the pond rather than an honest and objective analysis.

@Potemkin

Who won World War II? Well if you want my honest opinion I would say nobody really "won" World War II. But, if you insist that I pick a winner, I would have to say the United States "won" World War II. We emerged from World War II as the most powerful country. Our economy was much stronger. We defeated both our enemies on two fronts at the same time (having fought both the Japanese and Germany both at the same time ALL while supplying the Soviet Union and Great Britain with plenty of money and materials to fund their armies).

We suffered less devastation than most countries in World War II and our casualties were much lower than most countries. Plus, we developed the atomic bomb and had a monopoly on it. We came out as a creditor nation where other countries owed us. Plus, we built Western Europe after World War II and offered the same to Eastern Europe (but the Soviets wouldn't allow Eastern Europe to be rebuilt and wouldn't accept our aid that really, they badly needed to rebuild their own country).

The rest of the world? Well, you know their economies were destroyed, they suffered massive casualties and they owed money to probably the U.S. and they certainly didn't put the material and economy into fighting on two fronts at the same time that the U.S. did. Plus, they suffered massive casualties. Like the former Soviet Union to this day has a low male population because of World War II. This is all thanks to Stalin's massive incompetence and Hitler being an idiot. So, at the end of the day,they were in far worse shape than what they started after World War II. I hardly see that as any sort of victory for them.

[Potemkin]

@fuser

I have to disagree. I think some of what is being peddled here is some of the bias from across the pond rather than an honest and objective analysis.

@Potemkin

Who won World War II? Well if you want my honest opinion I would say nobody really "won" World War II. But, if you insist that I pick a winner, I would have to say the United States "won" World War II. We emerged from World War II as the most powerful country. Our economy was much stronger. We defeated both our enemies on two fronts at the same time (having fought both the Japanese and Germany both at the same time ALL while supplying the Soviet Union and Great Britain with plenty of money and materials to fund their armies).

We suffered less devastation than most countries in World War II and our casualties were much lower than most countries. Plus, we developed the atomic bomb and had a monopoly on it. We came out as a creditor nation where other countries owed us. Plus, we built Western Europe after World War II and offered the same to Eastern Europe (but the Soviets wouldn't allow Eastern Europe to be rebuilt and wouldn't accept our aid that really, they badly needed to rebuild their own country).

The rest of the world? Well, you know their economies were destroyed, they suffered massive casualties and they owed money to probably the U.S. and they certainly didn't put the material and economy into fighting on two fronts at the same time that the U.S. did. Plus, they suffered massive casualties. Like the former Soviet Union to this day has a low male population because of World War II. This is all thanks to Stalin's massive incompetence and Hitler being an idiot. So, at the end of the day,they were in far worse shape than what they started after World War II. I hardly see that as any sort of victory for them.

You keep insisting that nobody ever wins any wars. The historical record rather suggests that they do. There were definite winners of WW2 (the Allies), and definite losers (the Axis Powers). I really don't see how you can spin it any other way. And the main reason for the Allied victory was the Soviet Union's successful defence against the Nazi invasion, and its equally successful counterattack, ending in the occupation of Berlin. That's a clear loss for Germany, and a clear win for the Allies. Lol.

[fuser]

@Politics_Observer If you think defending Chamberlin is the bias from across the Pond, then I don't know what to say, lol.

Also Red army tripling in size or USSR getting extra 200-300km of land, all the war planning centered around defending against Germany, these things are not conjectures but actual facts as in the fact of Earth not being flat.

[Politics_Observer]

@Potemkin

You keep insisting that nobody ever wins any wars.

It's because THEY DON'T. NOBODY WINS! It's nothing but stupidity and as we would say in Afghanistan "Waste And Regret." It's senseless and a tragedy. Usually, wars are preventable and if not, they can be ran to keep casualties and suffering to a minimum as reasonably possible ( if the generals and officers are competent and if they hadn't been purged by their political leadership). Something Hitler and Stalin failed spectacularly at.

@fuser

Personally, I wouldn't defend Chamberlain from across the pond as he engaged in appeasement. You also forget Britain had France in this fight too before France was occupied.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin



It's because THEY DON'T. NOBODY WINS! It's nothing but stupidity and as we would say in Afghanistan "Waste And Regret." It's senseless and a tragedy. Usually, wars are preventable and if not, they can be ran to keep casualties and suffering are competent to a minimum as reasonably possible ( if the generals and officers and if they hadn't been purged by their political leadership). Something Hitler and Stalin failed spectacularly at.

Somebody wins, but at a price. The question is, do you consider that price to be worth paying? To defeat the Nazis, almost any price was worth paying. So yes, the Allies won WWII, and yes, it was worth it. Do you disagree?

Personally, I wouldn't defend Chamberlain from across the pond as he engaged in appeasement. You also forget Britain had France in this fight too before France was occupied.

You say the word "appeasement" as though it's a bad thing. But I really can't see what other viable policy was open to Britain (or France) at the time. As events were to show, neither Britain nor France were ready to fight Nazi Germany in the 1930s. They needed to buy time to rearm. The policy of "appeasement" did just that. And Chamberlain drew a line in the sand with Poland - if Hitler crossed over that line, there would be war. Hitler crossed over the line, and Chamberlain declared war on him. What more do you want from him?

[Politics_Observer]

@Potemkin

Winning and victory to me is achieving your objectives all while never having to fight or fight a war in the first place. The job of a military professional ultimately in my view is really to not fight and win wars, but to prevent wars in the first place and achieve the national interest all without ever having to fight a war. This means deterrence plays a role in this strategy too though.

[Politics_Observer]

@Potemkin

If you have to fight, that means deterrence has failed which is not what a nation should want to happen give the costs involved in having to fight. So, you have to prepare for war to prevent war. But that doesn't mean fighting is winning.

[fuser]

But he was preparing. At the time of Munich if Britain hadn't adopted "appeasement", it would had basically meant a Soviet dominated Central Europe. Now personally I would had liked that but from the Empire's pov, that was just not a good outcome to say the least. Thats why they kept dangling a carrot over USSR but not committing to an anti German alliance while also appeasing Germany, all this while preparing for war tirelessly. This is the reason why MR pact was such a shock as it put all the careful planning in disarray.

Of all the things I can blame British leaders of the era, I can never blame them of naive idealism and pacifism.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin

Winning and victory to me is achieving your objectives all while never having to fight or fight a war in the first place. The job of a military professional ultimately in my view is really to not fight and win wars, but to prevent wars in the first place and achieve the national interest all without ever having to fight a war. This means deterrence plays a role in this strategy too though.

Yes, but all of that rather depended on what Hitler wanted to do, don't you think? Hitler was determined to go to war, to take revenge for Germany being "stabbed in the back" at the end of WWI. Nobody could stop him from starting a fight, and Germany was a major European military power by 1939. This meant that, if they wanted to foil Hitler's strategic objectives (and any sane person would), they would have to fight a major war. Chamberlain couldn't avoid this (though he tried to do so for as long as he could), and Churchill couldn't avoid it either. Pace Sun Tzu, sometimes you can only win by fighting. Lol.

[Politics_Observer]

@Potemkin

Sometimes you have fuckwitz out there like Hitler who want to fight and you have no choice. I can't argue with you there. However, my question is this: if the allies reacted sooner before the invasion of Poland, could World War II have been avoided altogether? For example, when he sent in troops to take territory his country lost in World War I but the West did nothing. This is not deterrence. Part of deterrence is the certainty of punishment. When the West failed to respond to this, Hitler felt time and time again that he would pay no consequence despite warnings from the West (because he didn't think the West would actually do anything) and thus made a much wider and even more bloodier war possible than what otherwise would have happened. I believe Hitler could have been deterred had the West acted sooner in the game instead of waiting until he invaded Poland.