# What if: Hitler didn't attacked Russia?



## al49 (Mar 12, 2010)

I don't know if the above thread already exist but, in any case, I think it could be an interesting mental exercise to think what could have happened if Germany would have used these resources to conquer Egypt and reach M.E. fields from there.
It's up to you now.
Cheers
Alberto


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 12, 2010)

With Soviet Union providing the oil, and the bulk of the army not consuming it, there is no need for Germans to go beyond Suez channel. Germany wins.


----------



## imalko (Mar 12, 2010)

I agree with Tomo. However, would like to point out that according to my opinion war between Germany and Soviet Union was inevitable. It would happen sooner or later.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 12, 2010)

imalko said:


> ...war between Germany and Soviet Union was inevitable. It would happen sooner or later


All good what-ifs require concessionary thinking
alot of variables to play with

i. D-Day landings would have proven significantly more problematic if not unfeasible in their historic form
ii. Malta would likely have been squashed and the gateway to N Africa flung open
iii. Any extended non-belligerence pact between Germany and the USSR might have been complicated by the activities of her Axis partner in the USSR's east; would Germany's non-aggression necessarily secure Japan's?

If the USSR are prepared to pump raw materials into Germany's war effort then the war of attrition, whilst probably still not winnable, has become an order of magnitude more difficult. Stalin naively believed that the pact between Germany and the USSR made them practically invincible, if he could be seduced into full-scale commitment there's every chance the war could have gone the other way; the Soviet war machine, unlike the US war machine, didn't have to ferry its hardware across the Atlantic and THEN stage it into Europe from UK bases.

The question there would be whether the Nazis wanted W Europe saturated, out of necessity, with Communist troops, easy to bring in, good luck with getting them out.


----------



## RabidAlien (Mar 12, 2010)

It was inevitable, yes, but if Hitler had postponed his invasion of Russia, that would have given Rommel the time/material needed to take N.Africa, Goering to defeat England, and consolidate Germany's hold on Europe. Then they would have had all the oil they needed, and only a single-front war to fight (with England out, the Atlantic would have been German, making a cross-oceanic invasion from the US a VERY difficult proposition). The US would have had to contend with that (there were plans in place, and even offices already set up, for a British-govt-in-exile back in '40-'41...just in case), as well as the Pacific war. Any war in Europe, had Hitler conquered Britain, would have had to come over through Russia...which would have put everyone back on a WWI-style stalemate, two massively huge armies straining against each other on one front.

That's my early-morning-pre-caffeine assessment.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 12, 2010)

What if: Hitler didn't attacked Russia?

Then - in due course - Stalin would have attacked Hitler.

MM


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 12, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> What if: Hitler didn't attacked Russia?
> 
> Then - in due course - Stalin would have attacked Hitler.
> 
> MM




You beat me to it...


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 12, 2010)

Can't argue with that....


----------



## parsifal (Mar 12, 2010)

In fact the Russians were preparing to do exactly that. The target was to have been Rumania....wonder why. This explaions the preponderance of Soviet armour in the South at the the time of barbarossa. The Soviets were planning to undertake their attack some time in 1942


----------



## stona (Mar 12, 2010)

I agree with the posts above. A nazi-Soviet conflict was inevitable on idealogical grounds rather than any geo- political ones. Having said that the nazis "living space" was always in the east and the natural antipathy of the two political systems can't be overestimated.
Steve


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 12, 2010)

Meanwhile, back at the what-if...


----------



## stasoid (Mar 13, 2010)

parsifal said:


> In fact the Russians were preparing to do exactly that. The target was to have been Rumania....wonder why. This explaions the preponderance of Soviet armour in the South at the the time of barbarossa. The Soviets were planning to undertake their attack some time in 1942



To start a war against Germany over Romania? For what? 
Natural resources? Russia had plenty of those, would never start a war for oil. Doesnt make any sense. 
Political? Were there any commmunist movements in Romania at the time? To the best of my knowlege they were practically non existent. 
Ethnical? There is more differences between Russians and Romanians then between Mexicans and Canadians.
Territorial? The Soviets had already returned Bessarabia as a result of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. No further territorial claims were considered.

Would Stalin ever attak Germany first? He in fact was more practical then he seems. Ideology has always been a priority in SU but not a good enough reason to go to a war against a superior enemy. There should have been something else. 
Germany on the other hand had much better motives (besides ideological factor) to go to the East: living space, resources, slave labor, etc. The war would've erupted earlier or late, no doubt. The Soviets were lucky to win two years. Had Barbarossa been planned for 39', who knows, we all would probably speak German now.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 13, 2010)

The Germans were just as ill prepared for war against Russia in 1939 as the Russians were. Even Hitler knew he could not attack Russia in 1939.


----------



## Willszenith (Mar 13, 2010)

HMMM.. I think that if there was not a russian /german conflict, the russians would have probably clased with the japanese in manchuria , ( which they did in 39) and this may have led to a large russian army entering china.

However I dont think stalin would leave the west russia in a weak position , there is a theory that if the Germans had not invaded russia, pushed through north africa, into india and link with the japanese.

Germany would have gained support from arab nations and perhaps india seeking its independence from the British empire, thus also surronding russia on all sides...


----------



## al49 (Mar 13, 2010)

stasoid said:


> To start a war against Germany over Romania? For what?
> Natural resources? Russia had plenty of those, would never start a war for oil. Doesnt make any sense.
> Political? Were there any commmunist movements in Romania at the time? To the best of my knowlege they were practically non existent.
> Ethnical? There is more differences between Russians and Romanians then between Mexicans and Canadians.
> ...



I fully agree with you and I think that we, born after the end of WW2, are all lucky that Hitler decided to start what was the beginning of his end. (As well as the end of Mussolini)
Alberto


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 13, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Germans were just as ill prepared for war against Russian in 1939 as the Russians were. Even Hitler new he could not attack Russia in 1939.


Yep, plus he had no other armies (Finnish, Romanian, Hungarian, Italian) to make up the numbers. And if we assume he went through Poland to invade SU, that means UK France at war.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 13, 2010)

Stalin moved against Romania to deny Hitler access to Romanian oil. He didn't "need" the oil himself but he knew Germany did.

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 13, 2010)

Is that anti-Romanian campaign of '44 you think about?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 13, 2010)

No tomo - it is in '39 or '40 - post M-R Pact. I'll find a date/details and post but the action was what prompted the Romanians to ally with Hitler.

MM


----------



## parsifal (Mar 13, 2010)

The reason for attacking Rumania was about establishing a strong presence in the balkans. Stalin was seeking to establish political control over Europe, and traditionally the starting point for that was through dominating the balkans. Thats why the balkans was known as the "backdoor to Europe". Stalin wanted to gain political influence over the Germans and prevent them from dominating the whole of Europe. The fact that it was a gross overestimation of Russian capabilities is irrelevant really.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 13, 2010)

As part of M-R pact Stalin occupied Bessarabia, a region with strong German roots that had been part of the Ukraine prior to the end of WW1 but was in 1939 part of Romania. In 1940 German troops moved into Romania to "protect" and later that year Romania joined the Axis.

Parsifal's analysis is historically correct - my point about Romanian oil is shadowed by the reluctance historians have to accept the "Ice Breaker" scenario (that Stalin was poised to go on the offensive around October 1941). This explains why Soviet troops were positioned where they were in June 1941 and why they had no "orders". There is much of Sokolov's (sp?) Ice Breaker theory that I have difficulty swallowing - like tanks with Christie suspensions that were designed not for cross-country but fast highway travel on wheels - but overall Stalin knew he had to do it to Hitler before Hitler did it to him, and preventing Hitler from accessing Romanian oil was a No 1 consideration in containing Hitler.

In supporting this "shoot first" thesis I remind readers that just last year we learned from Putin historians in Russia that England and France caused WW2 because, if they had just reneged on their treaty with Poland and had given Stalin permission to advance west through Poland in 1939 (pre M-R Pact) WW2 would have been prevented.

It's a great debate. What if - indeed 

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 14, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> No tomo - it is in '39 or '40 - post M-R Pact. I'll find a date/details and post but the action was what prompted the Romanians to ally with Hitler.
> 
> MM


So they occupied Besarabia - no oil there. If Stalin was to attack Germany, he would not supply them with oil (and other stuff) all way to Barbarossa.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 14, 2010)

parsifal said:


> The reason for attacking Rumania was about establishing a strong presence in the balkans. Stalin was seeking to establish political control over Europe, and traditionally the starting point for that was through dominating the balkans. Thats why the balkans was known as the "backdoor to Europe". Stalin wanted to gain political influence over the Germans and prevent them from dominating the whole of Europe. The fact that it was a gross overestimation of Russian capabilities is irrelevant really.



The M-R pact was seen in Sovie Union as a pact between two equal subjects. 
After splitting of Poland, Germans overran Norway, Low Countries and France, already having Austrian and Czechoslovakia firmly in their hands, plus great influence in Hungary Bulgaria, the balance shifted to German hands - and Stalin was aware of that. So he moved to Baltic States Beassarabia in order to compensate.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 14, 2010)

" ...The M-R pact was seen in Soviet Union as a pact between two equal subjects. .."

Perhaps in Stalin's eyes, tomo, but certainly not in Hitler's. Your comment in an earlier post about the Balkans (gateway)was more correct and insightful.
No oil in Bessarabia - true - but also much German influence from the distant past there. And definitely moves the yard sticks into post-1918 Romania. The occupation of the Baltic Republics was a long time Soviet ambition - they had been part of the Imperial Eagle's jig saw puzzle since Peter - and were chucked out by Independence Movements in 1918-19. Stalin wanted them back. Hungary and Bulgaria were never spheres of Russian influence - not Slavic in any way shape of form. Stalin was a hegemonist as well as a (international) communist 

IMHO the only part of your statement that is really true "pact between two equal subjects" is the equality with which each man believed he was smarter and more cunning than the other. In the short term Stalin misjudged Hitler and was wrong, in the long term he was right - and survived to create a post WW2 superpower.

You make no comment about my several references to "Ice Breaker". Do you not have any thoughts on this subject  that you'd care to share, or, do you like many believe that Russia was blind-sided by Hitler on that fateful June 22nd morning??

Yes, I am well aware that train loads or ore, oil, and other necessities rumbled over the border just hours before the cannons started .... but ... Stalin was warned by Churchill several times of the exact date and hour of the German attack. Soviets don't willingly acknowledge this but it is nonetheless true. The question is why did Stalin play "dumb" when he knew this information: the answer is that he was buying time for his own first strike, and that he truly believed that Hitler was just "maneuvering". After being warned by the British about Barbarossa, Stalin took that information seriously enough to get intelligence agents all across Nazis occupied Europe to check the fur market - sheepskin, rabbit, cowhide, whatever. The market was FLAT - no rush, no hoarding, no inflated prices, nada. From this intelligence Stalin determined that rumor of Barbarossa was a BLUFF - after all - no leader in his right mind would contemplate war with Russia without preparation for WINTER 

Well - Stalin was wrong. He couldn't envisage the daring and audacity of an attack that was betting on taking Moscow by end-September '41. Not only was Stalin wrong, but he was thoroughly shaken psychologically. That's why he just disappeared for the better part of the first week of the war. Poof - gone. Let the Generals bumble and stumble without plans or orders.

Stalin was a chess player. Hitler was a gambler.

Health, my friend.

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 14, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> " ...The M-R pact was seen in Soviet Union as a pact between two equal subjects. .."
> 
> Perhaps in Stalin's eyes, tomo, but certainly not in Hitler's. Your comment in an earlier post about the Balkans (gateway)was more correct and insightful.



My comment about Balkans as gateway? From what post?



> No oil in Bessarabia - true - but also much German influence from the distant past there.



Care to shed some light about that influence, and how that effected superpower match unfolding in early 1940es?


> And definitely moves the yard sticks into post-1918 Romania. The occupation of the Baltic Republics was a long time Soviet ambition - they had been part of the Imperial Eagle's jig saw puzzle since Peter - and were chucked out by Independence Movements in 1918-19. Stalin wanted them back. Hungary and Bulgaria were never spheres of Russian influence - not Slavic in any way shape of form. Stalin was a hegemonist as well as a (international) communist



Bulgaria not Slavic? Wrong there, my friend  As for Hungary - the country was geographicaly as close to Soviet Union as it was to Germany, and Germans had it in their camp. Not looking good in Stalin's eyes. I agree Stalin was hegemonist.



> IMHO the only part of your statement that is really true "pact between two equal subjects" is the equality with which each man believed he was smarter and more cunning than the other. In the short term Stalin misjudged Hitler and was wrong, in the long term he was right - and survived to create a post WW2 superpower.



OK 



> You make no comment about my several references to "Ice Breaker". Do you not have any thoughts on this subject  that you'd care to share, or, do you like many believe that Russia was blind-sided by Hitler on that fateful June 22nd morning??



Never read the "Ice breaker" 
Was Stalin preparing against (German) attack? He surely was.
Was he/Red Army prepared? Nope.



> Yes, I am well aware that train loads or ore, oil, and other necessities rumbled over the border just hours before the cannons started .... but ... Stalin was warned by Churchill several times of the exact date and hour of the German attack. Soviets don't willingly acknowledge this but it is nonetheless true. The question is why did Stalin play "dumb" when he knew this information: the answer is that he was buying time for his own first strike, and that he truly believed that Hitler was just "maneuvering". After being warned by the British about Barbarossa, Stalin took that information seriously enough to get intelligence agents all across Nazis occupied Europe to check the fur market - sheepskin, rabbit, cowhide, whatever. The market was FLAT - no rush, no hoarding, no inflated prices, nada. From this intelligence Stalin determined that rumor of Barbarossa was a BLUFF - after all - no leader in his right mind would contemplate war with Russia without preparation for WINTER


You assume many things that weren't - Hitler being in 'right mind', broken German economy buying furs for soldiers, German HQ Hitler concern about logistics.
Again, Stalin/Read Army DID react vs. apparent German invasion. They massed the 3/4 of their armed forces, 300 km deep from border with now-Germany their satellites. Thus, serving them on silver plate for Blitzkrieg-seasoned army. 



> Well - Stalin was wrong. He couldn't envisage the daring and audacity of an attack that was betting on taking Moscow by end-September '41. Not only was Stalin wrong, but he was thoroughly shaken psychologically. That's why he just disappeared for the better part of the first week of the war. Poof - gone. Let the Generals bumble and stumble without plans or orders.



Nothing new for me there...



> Stalin was a chess player. Hitler was a gambler.



OK



> Health, my friend.
> 
> MM


Cheers


----------



## stasoid (Mar 14, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Never read the "Ice breaker"



Dont bother. Waste of time. En ex-KGB (Rezun-Suvorov, defected) making his living on publishing tabloid style sensationl fantasies on WW2 matters. A lot of technical flaws. Not worth reading, imo.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 14, 2010)

*My comment about Balkans as gateway? From what post?*
Sorry, my mistake tomo. Parsifal's post. But correct IMHO.

Bulgaria not Slavic? Wrong there, my friend As for Hungary - the country was geographicaly as close to Soviet Union as it was to Germany, and Germans had it in their camp. Not looking good in Stalin's eyes. I agree Stalin was hegemonist.

Bulgarians - my mistake. Meant Romanians. Bulgarians are Slavs and the language is Slavic. Romanians (which I intended to write) are not Slavs and Romanian is a Romance language with roots in Latin, like all romance languages.
As for Hungary - physical proximity has nothing to do with "influences". Hungary's roots are Magyar and the language is Finno Ugric (sp) - same as Estonian and Finnish. All non-Slavic peoples in the region tend to look west, not east - as the direction from which progress came. That's why Great Peter built his new capital on the Baltic, facing west.

*Care to shed some light about that influence, and how that effected superpower match unfolding in early 1940es?*
Sure, I'll try to. There were historically "pockets" of Germans - as opposed to Slav - peoples throughout the western USSR. Many had been there since Peter the Great and Catherine. Czars often imported Germans to "bootstrap" a district or region economically. (Millers, stone masons, whatever. Skilled craftsman.) Just as Peter went to Europe and worked in a shipyard to learn a trade, before acending to the throne. After 1917, these pockets were a cause of concern to the Soviet, were often deported east. And when the Germans came in 1941, they were often greeted warmly by the locals (if not for long . Bessarabia historically had been influenced by "imported" Germans. As had the Ukraine which mustered a pro-Nazi cossack army if I'm not mistaken. 
Stalin - watching Hitler develop through the late '30's - could see that Hitler was expanding Naziism under the guise of pan-Germanism: Rhineland, Austria, Sudetanland etc. All this had a bearing on how these two leaders viewed/trusted each other and motives.

*You assume many things that weren't - Hitler being in 'right mind', broken German economy buying furs for soldiers, German HQ Hitler concern about logistics.
Again, Stalin/Read Army DID react vs. apparent German invasion. They massed the 3/4 of their armed forces, 300 km deep from border with now-Germany their satellites. Thus, serving them on silver plate for Blitzkrieg-seasoned army.*

I assume very little - certainly not that Hitler was in his right mind . As for the broken economy - by end of 1940 the German economy was certainly not broken. The Germans had integrated the wealth, population and means of production of Austria, France, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, etc. etc. Finding BTW in each of these countries a portion of the population who welcomed an enemy of communism. As you well know - Waffen SS regiments were raised throughout the conquered lands.
The positioning of the Soviet forces - without clear orders or strong defensive positions is as much evidence of Stalin's plans for October '41 as for effective defense in June '41. Stalin didn't believe Hitler would gamble.

As for Stasoid's anti-Ice Breaker post. He is free to hold whatever view he wishes. I myself already posted that I was a sceptic in many, many ways. But I think *you s*hould decide for yourself whether or not any of the "evidence" Suvorov "musters". The story of the furs is his - not mine - but could be cross checked. Buying sheep skins for boots, rabbit for glove linings - these aren't luxury furs and ANY military thinking of war with Russia would make winter uniforms - but not Hitler 

tomo I realize I sound like an anti-slavik bigot  but I am not. Nonetheless the historical record is the historical record. I am very suspect of Soviet era thinking. Facts were not allowed to get in the way of social engineering. 

Criticize as you like.

Chairs.

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 14, 2010)

Sorry if you think I'm criticizing for sake of it 

Re. nations, languages proximities - while similar nations and similar languages might or might not tailor strategic issues, the proximity of one country is well within those issues. So Romania was much greater issue for Soviets, then for Kingdom of Yougoslavia, for example.

Re. ethnic Germans in Soviet Union: you over estimate the influence ethnic Germans might have. 1st, they were to few compared to total population, 2nd, ethnic minority in a non-democratic country would find itself in problems for saying "we are minority, therefore we have rights", let alone to try gain influence over majority. 3rd, main part of German majority were "povolški nijemci" (="Germans by river Volga") - so, couple of thousands of kilometres away from Ruso-German border. In short - to few, to weak and to far away to be important. 
You also overstate ethnic-German influence in Ukrainian relations with Stalin. It was Stalin that killed, via starvation, millions of Ukrainians - motivating them to welcome Germans from 22.06.1941. 

Re. German economy not broken: Wehrmacht fielded under 20% of it's infantry divisions as motorized in early 40es; none as mechanized prior 1942. Soldier walked in order to go to combat. Main prime mover for artillery was horse - despite just capturing thousands of French AFVs. Luftwaffe fielded under 700 Bf-109 fighters for Barbarossa, with total of way under 3000 combat planes. They looted and plundered any contry they captured. For needs of an army tasked to defeat largest army in the world, the German economy was not able to provide.

Re. orders possitons of Red Army units: theiy could not be as strongly entrenched as they were before fall of Poland because of simple fact that those positions were in Red Army hands a year or two, compared with almost 20 years available for previous positions. Orders like 'go there and stay' were as clear as any you like.



> The story of the furs is his - not mine - but could be cross checked. Buying sheep skins for boots, rabbit for glove linings - these aren't luxury furs and ANY military thinking of war with Russia would make winter uniforms - *but not Hitler*



Than I rest my case about furs 

As for anti-this or anti-that bigot: people make mistakes even in the fields of their expertise, let alone outside. Me included.



> Nonetheless the historical record is the historical record.



Meaning?



> I am very suspect of Soviet era thinking. Facts were not allowed to get in the way of social engineering.



Do you mean other establishments were saying the truth all the time?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 14, 2010)

"German economy not broken: Wehrmacht fielded under 20% of it's infantry divisions as motorized in early 40es; none as mechanized prior 1942...." *Germany was not on a war footing economy* until 1942-43. Women not mobilized in the work force as in USA or USA or GB. This semi-peacetime mode is just another symptom of Hitler being delusional.. Guns AND Butter.

"Meaning" - I think you greatly underestimate the influence of Germans on pre-1917 Russia. Regions like Latvia and Estonia looked entirely to Germany for culture and religion. Lithuania looked to Poland - which was Catholic not Orthodox. And it had been thus for hundreds of years - these countries were first colonized by Teutonic Knights and were Hansiatic states before Peter. 

Again - acknowledging generalizations - tribes such as Balts, Estos and Magyars had always been threatened from the east by hordes that sprung up - whether Huns, Mongols or the Tsars army.

"Do you mean other establishments were saying the truth all the time?" Truth doesn't come from establishments - I think we both know that. History is called upon by establishments to legitimize a particular narrative that they want to sell. Russia has always portrayed itself as "Mother" to various slavic peoples. Germany has always looked "east" for expansion because they needed room, resources and markets. The Anglo-Saxon people have been influenced by their history and their island status to see themselves as above and outside the realm of continental Europe. These of course are all gross generalizations and I concede that  but use them here to illustrate what I meant by "the historical record is the historical record".

That said - I think that under communism - black was often white and white was black. For a political system responsible for the lives of its citizens and the nation's well-being, that kind of pseudo scientific dogma is disastrous. That is not to say that 1,000's and 1,000's of people didn't/don't believe that communism is the key to world peace and the brotherhood of the proletariat.  I say "good luck with that" but personally - I see no examples that spring to mind that support that premise in a positive way. Russia became a global superpower after 1945 because (1) they occupied much of the field, (3) had survived the Germans (and Stalin's purges) thanks to the same blood is thicker than water love of Russia that had served Czars in previous crises, and (4) got the atomic bomb thanks to an intelligence network put in place outside Russia in the economically tough 1930's when otherwise intelligent people started believing their system had failed them.

I live in a country that constantly is under the shadow of a powerful USA and is fed a diet of US culture and historical revisionism (too strong a word but none else comes to mind). That said, there are vast orders of magnitude between the "truth" of the US cultural output and that of the communist Soviet Union. I know which one I prefer. And much of the world agrees with me - even if anti-American in disposition. 

Never for a moment do I underestimate the power and strength of Russia - which is why my favorite hockey contests are Canada-Russia - and not Canada-USA.  And I have the greatest respect for the contribution the Soviet Union-Russian people made in WW2. But North America is a free society - ideas are allowed out of jars and - while there are lots of cases of facts being withheld - generally it is the exception rather than the rule. I have no confidence that the same openness applies in the (former) USSR and its legacy lives in modern Russia. Truth is what a nation and a society make of it - but truth is not play dough - if you make the wrong choices with it, over time that will be reflected in your social, political and economic well being. For example - decline in male life expectancy.

So with all respect tomo - please don't dismiss the notion that Stalin would have struck at Germany first. That idea has been declared verboten because the message (and reality) of the Great Patriot War - when victim Mother Russia reeled but never broke - has been so effectively sold. Even in the USA there is no appetite for that view because it would simply make clear that Hitler was a more driven gambler than Stalin.

Chairs,

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 15, 2010)

> Germany was not on a war footing economy until 1942-43. Women not mobilized in the work force as in USA or USA or GB. This semi-peacetime mode is just another symptom of Hitler being delusional.. Guns AND Butter.



German economy was not in position to sustain the needs of it's armed force, even after Stalingrad. So if they had butter prior that, it was gone after. And soldiers still had to walk.



> I think you greatly underestimate the influence of Germans on pre-1917 Russia. Regions like Latvia and Estonia looked entirely to Germany for culture and religion. Lithuania looked to Poland - which was Catholic not Orthodox. And it had been thus for hundreds of years - these countries were first colonized by Teutonic Knights and were Hansiatic states before Peter.



I've never said anything about German influence to pre-communist Russia - and that issue is not related to this thread. 
Another thing is influence that German minority from Russia might have in regard to Russo-German relations - and it was negligible. If you think that opinions of citizens of Baltic states and Poland after 1939/40 meant anything in Soviet Union, I'd say you're idealist 



> Again - acknowledging generalizations - tribes such as Balts, Estos and Magyars had always been threatened from the east by hordes that sprung up - whether Huns, Mongols or the Tsars army.



What this had to do with thread escapes me 



> These of course are all gross generalizations and I concede that but use them here to illustrate what I meant by "the historical record is the historical record".



Thanks for clearing out - I generally agree with you.



> So with all respect tomo - please don't dismiss the notion that Stalin would have struck at Germany first.



We'd never know, I say.



> Chairs,



Sofas 

Michael, it would be redicoulus from me to claim former communist countries had more speech freedom than W. European or N. American. Yet, during last almost 70 years, the intelligence networks would've provided enough of evidence (not some sensastionalistic chit-chat) that Russians were to strike 1st - yet they weren't.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 15, 2010)

"... during last almost 70 years, the intelligence networks would've provided enough of evidence (not some sensationalistic chit-chat) that Russians were to strike 1st - yet they weren't."

Reasonable argument, tomo. I am not a big fan of conspiracy theories and have acknowledged in this thread already that there is much I disagree with in the "first strike Stalin" theory. Having said that, I am constantly being surprised by what is turning up now when and where the "ice melts"  I read the claims of Putin historians last year that WW2 in Europe could have been prevented if France and England had only abandoned Poland and allowed Stalin's forces to move west and checkmate Hitler - I read that statement with amazement. Not because I didn't believe that Soviet diplomats had proposed that (I believe they did) but rather because of the (current day) attempt to paint the USSR as a proactive "peace maker" in 1939 - months before M-R Pact - and BURNISH Stalin's image and legacy. In essence their message: if you in the west had done what we asked there wouldn't have been war, you didn't, so we signed a deal with your enemy even though we knew he hated us and was committed to destroying communism and using us as slaves. If modern Russia can "overlook" Stalin's actions and the actions of communists throughout - from 1917 onwards - then that tells me there is a very casual regard for historical facts *in some quarters* of society. All of which is fine with Mr. P. I'm sure 

As for my goings on about Germanic enclaves in Tsarist Russia, or the fears of Balts, Estos, Magyars or others .... their views and aspirations may not have mattered a whit - I never said they did - but Hitler believed that the USSR would coming crashing down from within upon the strike of Barbarossa (shock and awe)  Why is that "premise" of Hitler's so hard to accept? For the first few months after June '41 it looked like he was right.

Chairs,

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 15, 2010)

I found that sentence about 'allowing' USSR to crush Germany prior M-R pact, and then after Poland was attacked, hilarious. 
1st, USSR had no direct border with Germany before oct '39. So the attack would involve invading Lithuania (at least) to capture East Prussia. The viability of such attack (both political and military) is questionable at least. 
If such idea was looming in Stalin head (both prior and after 17.09.39.), he would not ask West if that's okay - he would do it on his own. Not to mention such action was very unlikely, since he has just signed the pact 
The German war vs. West was seen just as such in Stalin's eyes - and he minded his own business.

Hitler expected that people of whole Soviet Union would've revolted vs. communists, not just minorities (Magyars do not fit in this picture anyway). He was a fool not to use such happenings, and also failed not to bolster that happening.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 15, 2010)

"...'allowing' USSR to crush Germany prior M-R pact". 

I believe that word I used was checkmate, not crush, tomo 

The only reason Magyars entered this conversation was when you suggested that Hungary's geographic proximity to Russia made Hungary naturally in the Russian sphere of influence - and I suggested NOT. By the same argument Estonia and Latvia do NOT consider themselves - and never have - within the Russian sphere - rather - consider Russia 'the horde' on the other side of the Narva River. This view may or may not be fair to Russia, tomo, but judged by recent Moscow-inspired activities like cyber attacks on Estonian IT infrastructure (for what cause? - for the relocation of a communist-era statue that Estonians found revolting and historically revisionist) - I'd say that Estonians are probably prudent to be suspicious of Moscow.

Of course I stand to be corrected  but I'm not sure you will erase my decades of western political indoctrination 

Chairs,

MM


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 15, 2010)

> I believe that word I used was checkmate, not crush, tomo



I see. Somehow I don't see Stalin applying 'just enough' force when dealing with enemy - he was more akin to applying overwhelming force.

As for Magyars, well, you've put them in the same sentence together with other nationalities adjacent to Russia, so I replied 

As for indoctrination - 25 years ago I was convinced T-34 was the best tank in WW2 (Tiger worst), MiG-21 the best jet (B-52 worst), M-84/T-72 best modern tank, surface to air missile was infailible.... Yet I came to my senses eventually


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 15, 2010)

"... 25 years ago I was convinced T-34 was the best tank in WW2 (Tiger worst), MiG-21 the best jet (B-52 worst), M-84/T-72 best modern tank, surface to air missile was infailible.... Yet I came to my senses eventually.."

I appreciate your candor, tomo. 25 tears ago would be before the collapse of the Soviet system, would it not? So you can be forgiven for believing those things - back then. 

But new facts change one's perspective if one has an open mind - do they not? New facts are continuously being unearthed.

And that is precisely my point.

Many would argue - including Germans - that the T-34 *was* the best tank in WW2. I'd be one of them. 

Chairs,

MM


----------



## stasoid (Mar 15, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> I read the claims of Putin historians last year that WW2 in Europe could have been prevented if France and England had only abandoned Poland and allowed Stalin's forces to move west and checkmate Hitler - I read that statement with amazement. Not because I didn't believe that Soviet diplomats had proposed that (I believe they did) but rather because of the (current day) attempt to paint the USSR as a proactive "peace maker" in 1939 - months before M-R Pact



In fact Litvinov worked hard on Collective Security agreement. It took months, even years of negotiations with Britain and France before Munich Treaty and even after when those two became Hitler's best friends and Russia was left to fight singlerhanded. From this perspective, yes, the Soviets looked like peacemakers. These simple facts have nothing to do with Putin or current Russia's historians. Check Wiki, unless you beleive that Wikipedia is controlled by Mr. Putin too


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 15, 2010)

stasoid said:


> Check Wiki, unless you beleive that Wikipedia is controlled by Mr. Putin too



You are not serious are you? Wikipedia is not the best source to use. It can be written and updated by anyone. There is a reason why Universities over here in the United States do not allow it to be used as a source for papers and assignments.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 15, 2010)

"... and Russia was left to fight singlerhanded."

Is this your understanding of history, stasoid? That Russia was fighting Germany singlehandedly.

England, Poland, France and the Commonwealth went to war in September, 1939. At that moment Russia was just concluding it's eastern "incident" with Japan and was about to invade Finland. Is that the "fighting" you are thinking of 

I don't think Wiki is controlled by Mr. P. And I know who Litvinov was. I am claiming that Mr. P is "burnishing" Stalin's image - that is all 

MM


----------



## stasoid (Mar 15, 2010)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Wikipedia is not the best source to use.



I agree, Wiki is not the best source, just one among others, but it provides instant access to most of basic facts and Wiki is being moderated as far as I know.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It can be written and updated by anyone.



And this it why it makes it difficult to manipulate public's opinion, unlike mainstream media which are in hands of either governments or corporations.


----------



## stasoid (Mar 15, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... and Russia was left to fight singlerhanded."
> 
> Is this your understanding of history, stasoid? That Russia was fighting Germany singlehandedly.



I was reffering to the period of time between Munich Treaty and M-R Pact.
Please review the chain of events in late 30's to better understand geo-politics in Europe of that time.

- Berlin Olympics
- Civil War in Spain - Soviets fighting Axis, western democracies standing by
- Munich Treaty - Hitler and western powers are now allies
- Chechoslovakia - Hitler moves to the east
- Japan's rapid advance and military build up at the Far East
- Soviet attempts to sign Collective Security agreement failed
- Skirmishes with japanes troops at the Mongolian border ready to turn into a full scale military conflict.

Now, by the end of May 1939, it looked like Russia is facing a war very soon on two fronts and singlehanded, yes. It's a tough choice what you do in this situation. In 39' there is no T-34, no Yak-1, Mig-3, Il-2. They are not even on paper. What do you do to protect yourself?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 15, 2010)

"... And this it why it makes it difficult to manipulate public's opinion, unlike mainstream media which are in hands of either governments or corporations..."

Maybe where you live stasoid - and I am very skeptical of the MSM - but Wiki gets used to settle "scores" in ways that would not be accepted in "Public" media. You may like the fact that Wiki doesn't have "an agenda" - but that puts it up for grabs by anyone with an ax to grind.  For example: search for Kind David Hotel bombing and you will read an "alert" that the article is being questioned and evaluated.

But convenient - no doubt - I use Wiki all the time but the more political the topic the more I am skeptical. 

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 15, 2010)

"... May 1939, it looked like Russia is facing a war very soon on two fronts and singlehanded.."

Fighting whom?

The Japanese invaded Soviet territory and were thoroughly whipped by Zukov.
Spain was over.
China was a "volunteer" operation.

Poland is in the sights
Finland is in the sights
Bessarabia is in the sights
The Baltic republics are in the sights

Just whom is Stalin fighting singled-handed? Fascism.

Signing a mutual non aggression pact with the uber-fascist sure sounds like "fighting fascism" to me 

MM


----------



## stasoid (Mar 15, 2010)

michaelmaltby,

ok, it doesnt necessarily have to be Wiki, just do google search on Litvinov's meetings with his British and French counterparts.


----------



## stasoid (Mar 15, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> Signing a mutual non aggression pact with the uber-fascist sure sounds like "fighting fascism" to me MM



At that time it wasnt about fighting facism or hehemony over eastern europe. In my opinion Stalin was driven by a survival instinct signing the Pact.
A similar non-agression pact was signed with Japan a year later.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 16, 2010)

"... A similar non-aggression pact was signed with Japan a year later."

Having whipped the Japanese in May-August '39 ... convincing the Japanese to turn towards the Pacific instead of Mongolia and Siberia.

Surely signing this pact was just the final act by Stalin in aligning with the Axis.  

MM


----------



## parsifal (Mar 16, 2010)

Whilst it was Stalin who commenced the talks with Britain (mainly) and france (to a lesser extent), and it is also true that the Allies were somewhat cool to the notion of a reevitalised collective security pact with the russians, this is taking the whole issue very simplistically. Britain and France had nearly lost the Great war because of the Soviet defection and separate peace they had made with the Germans in 1917. Stalin had proven himself an untrustworthy leader in western eyes time and againin the interwar years, and lastly it was inane in the Communist system that through the comintern and other clandestine organizations they would seek to undermine and usurp political control of thir enemies AND allies alike. All this jiving by the Soviets painted them in a very bad light, and explains the reasons why the allies were so reluctant to reach out to them. in the end their reluctance proved well founded....faced with even such tepid opposition, Stalin decided to adopt a duplicitous approach, and soon after the talks with britain, arrived as asecret deal with the germans....he was playing both sides for the best deal in my opinion.

For the person who said the T-34 was not the best tank in the world ....well, it may not have been the best battle tank, but it is seen by many as the best all round tank, by miles. We have had this argument many times previously, but I remain of the view that when you can field 8 T-34s for every Panther, I kn ow which tank is the more cost effective.....


----------



## imalko (Mar 16, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Whilst it was Stalin who commenced the talks with Britain (mainly) and france (to a lesser extent), and it is also true that the Allies were somewhat cool to the notion of a reevitalised collective security pact with the russians, this is taking the whole issue very simplistically. Britain and France had nearly lost the Great war because of the Soviet defection and separate peace they had made with the Germans in 1917. Stalin had proven himself an untrustworthy leader in western eyes time and againin the interwar years, and lastly it was inane in the Communist system that through the comintern and other clandestine organizations they would seek to undermine and usurp political control of thir enemies AND allies alike. All this jiving by the Soviets painted them in a very bad light, and explains the reasons why the allies were so reluctant to reach out to them. in the end their reluctance proved well founded....faced with even such tepid opposition, Stalin decided to adopt a duplicitous approach, and soon after the talks with britain, arrived as asecret deal with the germans....he was playing both sides for the best deal in my opinion.



I tend to agree with most of what you wrote except your conclusion. It's true there was too much animosity accumulating over the years between UK and France and communist Soviet Union and this prevented signing collective security pact. (Among other things don't forget the foreign military intervention against young Soviet State in the Civil war for example.) In my opinion western powers failed to recognize the Nazism as greater evil then Communism. Stalin in my opinion wasn't playing both sides at the same "for the best deal". After all you said it yourself, _after_ talks with Britain and France failed he turned to Hitler. M-R pact was a last resort when everything else failed as he was desperately trying to buy time to ensure survival of his country and his regime.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 16, 2010)

"...M-R pact was a last resort when everything else failed as he was desperately trying to buy time to ensure survival of his country and his regime."

More like: grab as much real estate and booty as he could before Hitler got it all.

From the Treaty of Versailles until Hitler came to the Chancellorship (1933?? ) Russia and Germany were very happy to break the rules and co-operate in air and armoured warfare weapons and tactics development IN RUSSIA. Financed by Germany. Both sides were aware how violent the hatred was betwen then - as witnessed by the near Berlin communist takeover at the end of WWI - and subsequent street wars between Brown Shirts and Reds.

Stalin tried to get France and Engand to cede to his strategy of checkmating Hitler. When that was wisely rejected - he turned to an equally cunning land grab with his equally greedy and cunning nemisis, H. He turfed his foreign minister, a Jew, in order to deal with Hitler. 

Sorry, imalko, IMHO there is nothing praiseworthy about Stalin, and those who portray Hilter as the greater evil are naive. 

MM


----------



## imalko (Mar 16, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> More like: grab as much real estate and booty as he could before Hitler got it all.



Soviet territorial gains resulting from the pact were in service of securing and strengthening their own positions. I don't want to be misunderstood here however. I don't approve Soviet actions in Poland, Baltic states and elsewhere. I'm just saying I understand logic behind it as ruthless as it was.
After all, it was happening throughout history and is still happening today.



michaelmaltby said:


> Stalin tried to get France and Engand to cede to his strategy of checkmating Hitler. When that was wisely rejected ....



The "wisdom" of that decision was proved by events of WW2. Had the collective security pact between Western powers and Soviet Union existed, events might have unfolded quite differently. 



michaelmaltby said:


> IMHO there is nothing praiseworthy about Stalin...



Agreed more or less, but I was not praising Stalin to begin with.



michaelmaltby said:


> ...and those who portray Hitler as the greater evil are naive...



What would be less "naive" interpretation then?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 16, 2010)

"... Had the collective security pact between Western powers and Soviet Union existed, events would have unfolded quite differently."

Agreed, imalko, we would have an iron curtain in 1940 not 1945.

Stalin and the excesses of comunism have never subject to the same "outrage" standard as Hitler and the Nazis. All through the '30's the liberal left wanted to believe that the USSR was a great humanitarian "experiment" - overlooking purges, famine, gulags, whatever. Hitler had his supports too - Edward Prince of Wales just to name one - . But since the conclusion of WW2 Hilter has been the poster boy for EVIL. Measured by body counts both Mao and Stalin are orders of magnitude more evil than Hitler. Hitler personified "the banality of evil". There was nothing banal about Stalin. He was the "incarnation" of evil.

You know, imalko, there is a school of thought that says that Britain should have stayed out of WW1 when Germany invaded Belgium to get at France. While it is true that Britain's entry into that war almost certainly guaranteed her demise (loss of Empire etc. etc.) it is unimaginable that Britain would NOT get involved in 1914. A century earlier Britain put itself at risk against napoleon - maintaining an (almost) uninterrupted blockade of "Continental" Europe from 1790's to 1812 - in wooden sailing ships and rough waters.
Britain staked its defense on imposing itself into European power struggles when its future might be affected. (Outside and above I called it earlier in this thread ). Now that British "position" may or may not have been right, moral, or just - depends on what you believe and were taught  - but Spaniards, Portuguese and others in Europe were liberated by the relentless sacrifice of Britian. In the same way - Britian could have ducked its treaty obligations to Belgium in 1914 - and WW1 as we understand it would never have happened. France would have collapsed, I suspect, and there might never have been a Hitler. And the Russian Revolution also would have been different

So when you state "Had the collective security pact between Western powers and Soviet Union existed, events would have unfolded quite differently" that is quite true - but - as you see, one can't second guess the historical record in any century.

So I would defend Britain's rejection of Stalin's "alliance" to block Hitler because it was not founded in good faith and would have served totally Stalin and totally discredited Britain (and France). The fate of France, frankly, I care less about .

So - perhaps I am naive . My mom's dad and 2 brothers served in WW1 and the bro's in WW2. I can be more positive about the Germans and Germany that they fought than I can be about communism and Stalin (whom they never encountered).

There it is.

MM
Proud Canadian


----------



## Waynos (Mar 16, 2010)

The Soviet Union probably contributed more than any other country to the outbreak of WW2 so talk about Britain and Frances 'failures' is a bit rich.

If only the Russians hadn't sanctioned the creation and training of the German war machine inside their own territory during the preceding decade. Then things might have been different.


----------



## stasoid (Mar 16, 2010)

Waynos said:


> If only the Russians hadn't sanctioned the creation and training of the German war machine inside their own territory during the preceding decade. Then things might have been different.




"Creation of the German war machine" is a bit of exaggeration. A total of 1000 Luftwaffe pilots were trained in Lipetsk flight school from 1926 to 33', and about the same number of personell at the tank school in Kazan.


----------



## stasoid (Mar 16, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> Fighting whom?
> The Japanese invaded Soviet territory and were thoroughly whipped by Zukov.M



That was several months later. Turning point was May 1939: soviets stop appealing to Britain and France, pull out of talks, Litvinov dismissed from his post on May 2nd, replaced by Molotov who immediately starts negotiations with Germans.

Hadnt Zukov "whipped" Japanese at Khalkin-Gol, Hitler would've probably never signed M-R Pact, took the entire eastern europe in 39', and Russia would then face a war on two fronts as early as spring 1940.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 16, 2010)

true stasoid  

If I'm not mistaken Khalkin-Gol ran from June to end of August, 1939. M-R Pact signed Sept. '39. Is that your understanding too?  

Chairs,
MM


----------



## imalko (Mar 17, 2010)

Soviet-German non aggression pact was signed in Moscow on 23 August 1939.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 17, 2010)

stasoid said:


> "Creation of the German war machine" is a bit of exaggeration. A total of 1000 Luftwaffe pilots were trained in Lipetsk flight school from 1926 to 33', and about the same number of personell at the tank school in Kazan.



Who then went on to become the commanders and trainers of the resultant forces, plus the prototypes that were secretly flown and tested in the USSR allowing the German industry to perfect its skills with modern design techniques and materials. You cannot simply dismiss this starting point, from little acorns mighty oaks do grow.

The USSR was the only nation to sanction this clandestine activity. How is this episode treated by those who are rewriting history to blame Britain and France for the start of WW2?

There is only one country that is to blame, and that is Germany. Nobody made Germany start a war except the Nazi leaders.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 17, 2010)

Blaming UK France for ww2 is utter stupidity, so I agree with Waynos on that account.


----------



## imalko (Mar 17, 2010)

No one here is blaming UK and France for the outbreak of WW2, but it's equally "utterly stupid" to blame USSR as well. And this was notion suggested few posts above. I believe the exact Waynos' words were:


> The Soviet Union probably contributed more than any other country to the outbreak of WW2...



Yes, some prototypes of German aircraft were secretly flown and German personnel was trained in USSR. So what? This practice was discontinued with Hitler seizure of power in 1933. However, had the French and the British enforced the Versailles treaty as they were supposed to do, German war machine would had never been build. Hitler organized build up of German armed forces and they did nothing. He militarized Rheinland and they did nothing. Anschluss of Austria, Munich treaty... should I go on. All of this was against Versailles treaty and could be sanctioned or prevented, but wasn't. Soviet influence on these events was minimal.

Mistakes were made by some major players in European politics in late thirties. Mistakes that contributed to the outbreak of war in Europe which Nazi Germany caused and started.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 17, 2010)

Making a contribution is not the same thing as carrying the blame. Didn't I already say that only Germany was to blame?
The creation of a cadre of forces was an essential building block and it is silly to pretend otherwise. Also, it was not directly in this thread, but a comment was made in an exchange between stasoid and michaelmaltby which reminded me of another thread on this subject that students in Russia are being taught how Britain and France were entirely to blame for the rise of Nazi Germany and the outbreak of WW2 and I was referring to this. Lastly, that the M-R pact was the greenlight for the invasion of Poland that finally lit the blue touchpaper of war in Europe is indisputable, IMO these were Russias contributions, I do not pretend that the other major European powers did not also blunder badly.

Churchills own memoirs also detail how the enforcement of the Versailles treaty rather too harshly, especially by France, was part of the problem in the first place. France had to be restrained politically from re-invading Germany at least once as pressure was brought to bear from the UK and USA for them to back off.

Once the de facto existence of the Whermacht and Luftwaffe was known, in 1935, it was already too late for Britain to do anything about it (rearmament, remember?) and France could not act alone by this time and nobody wanted to actually start a war.

Or are you saying that Russia allowing the training of the core elements of the new German forces was ok, but we should have declared war as soon as they went back to Germany? That would be remarkably one-eyed if thats what you do mean?

It is fairly well known by now that German forces were under orders to turn round and go back to Germany if there was any allied mobilisation in reaction to them moving into the Rhineland and this never happened.

It can be argued that this was a mistake, but taking a different approach. How does anyone think things might have been handled for the better?

Leaving aside my points that Germany's forces could not have been created out of thin air without Russian compliance, if the war had begun anytime earlier than it did, while Germany was weaker, so were the British. Prior to 1938 the French were probably the best placed to go to war.

If the French had moved against German advances into the Rhineland I merely see the Germans moving east instead into Austria and Czechoslovakia, as they actually did, while waiting a bit longer and building their strength before moving west once again.

I think any idea that Hitler would have abandoned his warlike ambitions is naive, whilst at the same time the Munich agreement, regarded as shameful by many, was essential for Britian. Remember that at the same time he was Grovelling to Hitler, Chamberlain was also instrumental in getting resources diverted from Bomber Comand to Dowdings vision for Fighter Command.

a war in 1938 would have doomed Britain to defeat as there was no possibility of preventing the defeat of the RAF (assuming the successful conclusion to the Blitzkreig as French forces were the same in 39-40 as they were in 38) 

There still would have been no invasion of the UK due to practical limitations, but the British Empire would have become subordinate to Germany via armistice, this would have ended any possibility of US intervention in Europe and may well have doomed the USSR to ultimate defeat, though that last point is 50/50 in my view.

At least thats how I see it.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 17, 2010)

Excellent. Just excellent.

"... a war in 1938 would have doomed Britain to defeat as there was no possibility of preventing the defeat of the RAF".

These are the sober facts. Democracy needed time to re-bound ... there is no substitute for TIME (of course $$$ helps too ). imalko  - England and France were broke and exhausted in 1918 - the USA abandoned Europe - and Germany had motivation -- revenge.


We all would be wise to remember that reality as we witness the 21st Century's *first* gathering storm. And Mr. Putin -  - the west is watching you - and you either part of the west and with us - or you are a fellow-traveler and with our enemies.

Proud Canadian
MM


----------



## parsifal (Mar 17, 2010)

Waynos and Mike

Everything in youjr last two posts I agree with, except one....that a breakout of war in 1938 would have doomed the allies to defeat. i beg to differ. in 1938, Czechoslovakia was militarily as strong as Germany. germany in the air was not so overwhelmingly powerful, and she possed just three panzer units with which to fight. The germans, with hitlers blessing were intending to back down if the Britsh and french showed even the slightest signs or military reaction to the takeover of the Sudeten. Hitler has wanted war, but he was eventually persuaded that not to push this point.

In the lead up to the war it was germany that held the lead in military production. This situation continued until the 1st quarter of 1940, when the limits in the "stretchability" of the german economy began to force her to lag behind the allies....


----------



## Waynos (Mar 17, 2010)

This is a good debating point. I am not so sure about the allies overall, only the British position, and that was that war had to be avoided at all costs in 1938.

From the RAF point of view there were only two squadrons of Hurricanes in service and no Spitfires at all. Fighter Command was thus made up mainly with a couple of Gladiator Squadrons (which was itself still brand new), while the main body of the force was flying Gauntlets, Furies and Bulldogs (the latter being just about to disappear altogether). The fighters had no radio's (bar the newest types just being delivered) and there was no radar. The Gauntlets were armed only with 4x303 machine guns, the Furies had only two and none of them could rely on radar control or early warning.

The LW would have been attacking with He 111'S and Ju-86's, possibly also Do-17's. All of which would have presented a daunting target to the defending fighters, most of which were slower than these bombers. Early model 109's were nowhere near as good as the E, but were more than a match for 90% of fighter command.

Bomber Command had not even converted to the Whitley, Wellington or Battle completely yet and there were still Harts, Hendons and Heyfords in frontline squadrons. The mind boggles at how these would fare in combat. When Munich is criticised, this must be borne in mind.

The French had not yet deployed a modern fighter at all, unless you count the D510 as modern, and their larger bomber fleets were painfully obsolete, as they would remain. The Germans had a smaller force, but everything they had was modern, and largely battle proven too.

The German position in regards Blitzkrieg forces is crucial of course and in this area I am not at all well informed as to the position regarding tanks etc. 

If Blitzkrieg fails and the Germans are repulsed then my concern becomes academic, but the Germans didn't win out through sheer weight of numbers, as I recall, it was through surprise and rapid movement by forces relatively smaller than those they encountered was it not? I confess I am not at all certain on this point.

If that did happen then we are back to a WW1 stalemate all over again, and how does that play out in the latter 1930's?

Like I mentioned before, I just think that standing up to Hitler earlier, at the Rhine or Sudetenland, just delays the war until Germany feels stronger, it doesn't avoid it.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 17, 2010)

Thanks Parsifal - I understood Waynos to say "... defeat of the RAF" would essentially reduce England to a de-fanged observer.

And I believe he is right - he isn't suggesting a land invasion would have happened or succeeded - just loss of air superiority of the British Isles. If I read Waynos correctly - I think he's right. If the LW had been able to strike at will with diminishing losses - being an island, the UK would have over time had to arrive at a political resolution. We know that air power alone didn't crush Germany - but that said, with it's skies open to the enemy (and *that *was what was at stake in the B of B) - things would have gotten very, very tough for GB.

Of course one could argue that the USA would have been drawn into the war earlier etc. etc. - but there was no appetite in America for war in 1938 - there was no appetite on Dec. 1, 1941 - nothing short of a 12-7 attack would have brought a united America to the aid of Britain (and democracy), IMHO 

Proud Canadian,

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 17, 2010)

In the conflict that was emerging in 1938 - Britain was buying space with time. Russia would buy time with space (after 6-22-41) 

Both worked.

MM


----------



## Waynos (Mar 17, 2010)

Yes, that was exactly what I meant. What I believe to have been the real prize for Germany in winning the BoB, neutralisation of Great Britain rather than invasion, would have been readily achievable in 1938.

There are lots of imponderables of course. Would France have held up the Germans long enough for the real timeline to catch up? Possibly, given the relative growth of Germany over the next 12 months compared to France's relative military stagnation. But we cannot know and Britain could not take the chance. The speed with which France did fall came as a major shock to everyone, including the Germans, so that outcome is also equally possible again.

With British acquiescence to Germany by, say, early to mid 1939, the USA would have no interest in Europe at all. Churchill would never have been in the position to whip up the level of support that he did. The American-Japanese war would have been recorded as an entirely separate conflict, although the Japanese may have brought their own plans forward if they were inspire by such a massive German success?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 17, 2010)

:... Would France have held up the Germans long enough for the real time line to catch up?"

Very, very doubtful.

"... The speed with which France did fall came as a major shock to everyone, including the Germans".

Shouldn't have. France was adrift and demoralized - same head-in-the-sand position as the years before the Franco-Prussian war when Bismark's Germany whipped them in record time.

And for stasoid and imalko  - if you're still following this thread  in 1938 there were many in Britain who (rightly) feared communism and might ( I repeat "might") have been able to live with a fascism-tolerant government as the price of a war to stop communism. Hope you don't think I'm exaggerating or fear-mongering on this - but if you do - think US relations with Spain and Portugal 1945-55. 

MM


----------



## imalko (Mar 17, 2010)

Waynos said:


> The creation of a cadre of forces was an essential building block and it is silly to pretend otherwise...
> ...Or are you saying that Russia allowing the training of the core elements of the new German forces was ok, but we should have declared war as soon as they went back to Germany? That would be remarkably one-eyed if that's what you do mean?



No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that training of core elements of new German forces in USSR would count for nothing if build-up of German war machine was not allowed by victors of the Great war, France and Britain. They had the means to stop it but they didn't.



Waynos said:


> ...Also, it was not directly in this thread, but a comment was made in an exchange between stasoid and michaelmaltby which reminded me of another thread on this subject that students in Russia are being taught how Britain and France were entirely to blame for the rise of Nazi Germany and the outbreak of WW2 and I was referring to this. Lastly, that the M-R pact was the greenlight for the invasion of Poland that finally lit the blue touchpaper of war in Europe is indisputable, IMO these were Russias contributions, I do not pretend that the other major European powers did not also blunder badly.



I don't know what are students in Russia being thought and frankly I don't care. However, it would be wrong to say that France and Britain didn't contributed to the rise of Nazi Germany. (Contributing and being blamed for are not the same thing as you put it.  )



Waynos said:


> ... the M-R pact was the greenlight for the invasion of Poland that finally lit the blue touchpaper of war in Europe is indisputable, IMO these were Russian contributions, I do not pretend that the other major European powers did not also blunder badly.



Then we agree of something. 

Regarding other posts about outbreak of war in 1938. I believe that Czechoslovakia was capable to defend itself against the Wehrmacht such as it was in 1938. They had strong army and air force, strong fortifications along the border with Germany and mountainous terrain working to their advantage. Blitzkrieg as it was seen in the Low countries would not be possible here. It is testimony to quality of Czechoslovak equipment that their tanks (German designations Panzer 38(t) and Panzer 35(t)) after the occupation were pressed into service with the Wehrmacht and soldiered on well into the 1941 participating even in operation Barbarossa. With support of Western powers and USSR (as it was promised) the fight would be soon over. As weak as these countries individually were at that time together they were far stronger then Nazi Germany (which itself was far weaker then year later). In that context Luftwaffe wouldn't be able to threaten the UK as German armed forces would have been defeated in Czechoslovak mountains.


----------



## imalko (Mar 17, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> :... in 1938 there were many in Britain who (rightly) feared communism and might ( I repeat "might") have been able to live with a fascism-tolerant government as the price of a war to stop communism. Hope you don't think I'm exaggerating or fear-mongering on this - but if you do - think US relations with Spain and Portugal 1945-55.


 
Although I don't know what exactly was "rightly" about that I actually agree with you. Fear of Communism was the main reason as to why Western powers failed to recognize Fascism as the greater threat on time.


----------



## stasoid (Mar 17, 2010)

Waynos said:


> Who then went on to become the commanders and trainers of the resultant forces, plus the prototypes that were secretly flown and tested in the USSR allowing the German industry to perfect its skills with modern design techniques and materials. You cannot simply dismiss this starting point, from little acorns mighty oaks do grow.
> 
> The USSR was the only nation to sanction this clandestine activity. How is this episode treated by those who are rewriting history to blame Britain and France for the start of WW2?
> 
> There is only one country that is to blame, and that is Germany. Nobody made Germany start a war except the Nazi leaders.




When this contract was signed in 1926, Germany was a democracy. Hitler and his gang was nothing but a bunch of hooligans back then. Noone could predict they would come to power. Goering was thrown in jail.

Russia was a country of pesants, most of whom couldnt read and write. Germany was a technologicaly advanced country with best engineering minds. Russians hired Germans to train them, otherwise make no sense to me. That's at least how I see it. Creation Germany's war machine is a bit of exaggeration.
All contacts were terminated in 33'


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 17, 2010)

".... Although I don't know what exactly was rightful about that I actually agree with you. Fear of Communism was the main reason as to why Western powers failed to recognize Fascism as the greater threat on time."

Gosh, imalko, let's just try and imagine why a thinking person living in a democracy might be afraid of communism in the late 1930's. 

- Destruction of the peasant middle class farmers
- Mass deportations to work-death-camps
- Planning starvation of an entire country
- Purge and execution of highest ranking who disagree
- International intrigue and destabilization of legitimate governments
- Atheism and outright war on Christianity and Christian values

Shall I continue 

Now you or others - no doubt - will tell me that the same list could be applied to Nazis Germany and Hitler and - for the most part  you'd be right.

But - I guess - if you're a believer, communism replaces all religious values and the well-being of the proletariat replaces "morality" and ethics - and class consciousness replaces "soul".

All fine I guess but the Nazis had "padres" - the way the Soviets had commissars. Less menacing to Christian Europe - the padres , I mean.

You make "fear of communism" sound like paranoia  You're wrong - they ARE out to control our lives.

Just kidding, Not 

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 17, 2010)

"... All contacts were terminated in 33'".

Stasoid, I've often wondered who broke it off. Hitler or Stalin. I read a book on the subject and even it didn't make that clear.

Thoughts 

MM


----------



## Waynos (Mar 17, 2010)

Imalko


> No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that training of core elements of new German forces in USSR would count for nothing if build-up of German war machine was not allowed by victors of the Great war, France and Britain. They had the means to stop it but they didn't.



I may be being incredibly dense here but was this agreement (from 1926-33, thanks stasoid) ALSO not in direct contravention of the Versailles treaty, or at least the spirit of it? You could argue, successfully that Russia was not a party to that agreement, but if Russia did not want Germany to rearm, why do it?

The work that was done in Russia in these years was in total secrecy. How were Britain and France responsible for failing to police this action? Like I said, once this was all revealed in 1935 what exactly were GB and France supposed to do? The resurgent German armed forces were presented as a fait accompli.

It was already too late. I don't see how 'country A' can facilitate the secret rearmament of 'country Z' but can then blame 'countries B and F' for not stopping it? Where's the logic?



> it would be wrong to say that France and Britain didn't contributed to the rise of Nazi Germany



Agreed, and I think it would be safe to throw the USA into the ring as well. There were lots of things that several countries could have done differently. The most crucial one being NOT making Versailles about revenge in the first place.

Regarding the Czech position, I know next to nothing other the barest facts of history, so, genuine question here, if they were caopable of repelling the Germans in 1938, why didn't they when the Sudetenland was annexed? This was sovereign territory after all, was it not?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 17, 2010)

"... Regarding the Czech position, I know next to nothing other the barest facts of history, so, genuine question here, if they were caopable of repelling the Germans in 1938, why didn't they when the Sudetenland was annexed?"

Very good question.

Possible answers:

- lack of political will. The "country" was not really a country but a creature of Versailles-League of Nations. Once the Iron Curtain came down the country harmoniously dissolved itself into 2 independent republics. Understanding themselves that they were two peoples - not a nation.
- prosperity. Belief in some quarters of the country that they would be economically better-served in Germany-centric Europe than outside.
-differing values-aspirations between Czech and Slovak populations

This should be a good one to get feedback on. 

MM


----------



## imalko (Mar 17, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> Gosh, imalko, let's just try and imagine why a thinking person living in a democracy might be afraid of communism in the late 1930's...
> 
> But - I guess - if you're a believer, communism replaces all religious values and the well-being of the proletariat replaces "morality" and ethics - and class consciousness replaces "soul".



Getting the impression you are trying to pull me into debate about ideology and religion here. First time I'm called "communist believer" too, even if only indirectly.  (If I misunderstood this part of your post I apologize.)
I was born in Communist country and watched it fall apart as bloody as that was. Being from workers (proletariat) family I believe we have better perspective of both sides of the communism then you as a foreign onlooker. However, I'm first to admit that Communist Yugoslavia was quite a different country then Soviet Union. Here's a bit of personal experience. I come from religious Christian family. My grandfather was active at church at the height of Communist regime in Yugoslavia and never had any problems because of that.




michaelmaltby said:


> All fine I guess but the Nazis had "padres" - the way the Soviets had commissars. Less menacing to Christian Europe - the padres , I mean.



Doubt that victims of Holocaust would agree with you about Nazis being less menacing for Christian Europe because they were not openly atheists.



michaelmaltby said:


> Now you or others - no doubt - will tell me that the same list could be applied to Nazis Germany and Hitler and - for the most part  you'd be right.



Glad we can ever find points to agree upon.



michaelmaltby said:


> You make "fear of communism" sound like paranoia ...



I the context of events of the thirties it was paranoia in sense it blinded the western democracies to see where the greatest danger was coming from.

Boy, this thread sure got stranded off topic...


----------



## Waynos (Mar 17, 2010)

> this thread sure got stranded off topic



Well it has 'Russia' in the heading and I do try to keep mentioning them


----------



## imalko (Mar 17, 2010)

Waynos said:


> I may be being incredibly dense here but was this agreement (from 1926-33, thanks stasoid) ALSO not in direct contravention of the Versailles treaty, or at least the spirit of it? You could argue, successfully that Russia was not a party to that agreement, but if Russia did not want Germany to rearm, why do it?
> 
> The work that was done in Russia in these years was in total secrecy. How were Britain and France responsible for failing to police this action? Like I said, once this was all revealed in 1935 what exactly were GB and France supposed to do? The resurgent German armed forces were presented as a fait accompli.
> 
> It was already too late. I don't see how 'country A' can facilitate the secret rearmament of 'country Z' but can then blame 'countries B and F' for not stopping it? Where's the logic?



Obviously you missed my point. When said France and UK didn't prevented build up of German war machine I was not referring to training of some 1000 or so of German personnel in USSR at the time when Germany was a democracy as Stasoid pointed out. However, they could have prevented German industry from manufacturing ever greater quantities of modern military hardware. One thousand trained specialists do not make a war machine (although they can be important part of it). Tanks, cannons and aircraft do. You can't seroiusly claim that entire armed forces of a country the size of Germany can be formed without anybody noticing anything and in contrary with international treaties?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 17, 2010)

"... Doubt that victims of Holocaust would agree with you about Nazis being less menacing for Christian Europe because they were not openly atheists."

Of course you're right imalko. Completely right. But lets remember that there was a long history of Jewish persecution in Christian Europe? True? Lets also remember that many, many prominent Jews were Communists. Also true?

I am not trying to draw you into a religious/political debate (said the fox ) and I am enlightened by details of personal experience - such as yours. I will say that Tito was NOT Stalin though  and I'm sure you will agree with me.

Sorry if you think the thread has gone awry. Unlike most "what-ifs" which speculate on airplanes that never existed, or time lines than never coincided - this thread has run with the political possibilities that were up for grabs. And I haven't read a post in this thread so far that has been silly or superficial. At the same time the thread is dancing along the line of Moderator censorship - which IMHO would be a shame. 

The best thing about the fall of communism has been the "dialogue dividend" 

MM


----------



## imalko (Mar 17, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... Regarding the Czech position, I know next to nothing other the barest facts of history, so, genuine question here, if they were caopable of repelling the Germans in 1938, why didn't they when the Sudetenland was annexed?"
> 
> Very good question.
> 
> ...



Czechs and Slovaks are two different nations, but as Slavs have great deal in common. To say that Czechoslovakia was a "creation" of the Versailles imposed on them would be simplistic and wrong view I believe. Movement for liberation from Habsburg rule and unification had many supporters among Czech and Slovak intelectuals way back. However, the fact that Bohemia and Moravia were in Austrian part of the empire and Slovakia under Hungarian rule had some consequences. Slovakia was underdeveloped, poorer and mostly rural part of the country. Most of industry being located in Bohemia and Moravia. There were some misunderstandings between two nations but I believe they were united in the feeling they should defend their country from the aggression.
So, why they didn't do so?

Here's how I see it. First of all they were told not to do so according to the Munich agreement. I've read somewhere that Czechoslovak high command believed they can fight off Wehrmacht on their own for four months. As mentioned few posts earlier they were counting on the strength of their army and air force, border fortifications and mountainous terrain. However, for ultimate success they _were_ expecting support from their Allies, France in the first place. After Munich agreement they felt betrayed, abandoned and possibly lost their will to fight.


----------



## imalko (Mar 17, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> Of course you're right imalko. Completely right. But lets remember that there was a long history of Jewish persecution in Christian Europe? True? Lets also remember that many, many prominent Jews were Communists. Also true?
> 
> I am not trying to draw you into a religious/political debate (said the fox ) and I am enlightened by details of personal experience - such as yours. I will say that Tito was NOT Stalin though  and I'm sure you will agree with me.



Agreed and agreed.  Unfortunately some of the greatest crimes in history were made in the name of religion.




michaelmaltby said:


> Sorry if you think the thread has gone awry. Unlike most "what-ifs" which speculate on airplanes that never existed, or time lines than never coincided - this thread has run with the political possibilities that were up for grabs. And I haven't read a post in this thread so far that has been silly or superficial. At the same time the thread is dancing along the line of Moderator censorship - which IMHO would be a shame.



Well, I don't quite think the thread has gone completely awry, just noticed we started to cover many issues not strictly related to the thread title. But that's fine by me. All in the name of good discussion. 
Cheers!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 17, 2010)

Great input on Czechoslovakia in 1938. And of course they would expect support from their "allies". But it wasn't to be. Sad.
I remember listening to accounts of the Hungarian revolution on the radio and you just knew that they were waiting for outside aid - and it wasn't going to come.

Tell me frankly now imalko, and this is a serious question: in your opinion who produces the better hockey players, Czechs or Slovaks , (now that's "awry" )

MM


----------



## imalko (Mar 17, 2010)

michaelmaltby said:


> Tell me frankly now imalko, and this is a serious question: in your opinion who produces the better hockey players, Czechs or Slovaks , (now that's "awry" )



 Frankly? Slovaks of course (but I might be little biased about that).


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 17, 2010)

"... Frankly? Slovaks of course (but I might be little biased about that). "

I feel the same way - especially watching the recent Olympics. In the old days the Czechoslovakian national team played with the same kind of discipline that the USSR did - but more soul. But it was hard to see where the talent and the "system" separated. But now that they are two nations - and the effects of the system have worn off, I sense that the Slovak men and women are more into the game than the Czechs. Is that maybe where being "a more rural country" comes into the picture 
It certainly has been true in Canada - soldiers and hockey players predominantly come from small towns/rural Canada. 

This has been a fun thread - don't know how much further it can go - unless you want to discuss "How 1938 looks a lot like 2010". 

Chairs,

MM


----------



## Waynos (Mar 18, 2010)

Imalko and Michaelmaltby, you might find this quote I found today from my local newspaper to be of interest. It is from a speech given at Sheffield Capital Steelworks by Arthur Balfour


> "Will the Germans go to war again? I don't think there is any doubt about it, and the
> curious thing about it is that I am almost persuaded that some day we shall have to let
> the Germans arm or we shall have to arm them. With the Russians armed to the teeth,
> and the tremendous menace in the East, Germany unarmed in the middle is always going
> ...


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 18, 2010)

"... Germany unarmed in the middle is always going to be a plum waiting for the Russians to take."

Waynos that is a great post - most ironic - but you have to wonder if Balfour wasn't a little bit slow getting his "intelligence".
By Oct 24, 1933 Hiitler is ready to ascend and the re-building has been going on clandestinely for years and years.

Thanks for that. 

MM


----------



## imalko (Mar 18, 2010)

I suspect that gentlemen who gave that speech never dreamed of possibility that Germany could turned her arms against the west first! Fear of communism causing tragical error in judgment. This is good example of what I was talking about few posts back. And the speech is dated October 1933 when Hitler was already in power. Interesting...


----------



## Waynos (Mar 18, 2010)

> you have to wonder if Balfour wasn't a little bit slow getting his "intelligence".
> By Oct 24, 1933 Hiitler is ready to ascend and the re-building has been going on clandestinely for years and years.



This goes back to the discussion imalko and I were having about rearmament and were we possibly ended up talking at cross purposes. It seems scarcely credible these days but, until 1934 at the earliest the Allies were completely unaware of Germany's military rebirth. This was my argument earlier and why the 1926-33 Russian arrangement was much more important than mere numbers can convey. When we were aware, many refused even to believe it and when we did, it was too late anyway. This shows however that we had no real desire to stop them even if we did know, which I believe was imalko's point and was also correct.



> I suspect that gentlemen who gave that speech never dreamed of possibility that Germany could turned her arms against the west first! Fear of communism causing tragical error in judgment. This is good example of what I was talking about few posts back. And the speech is dated October 1933 when Hitler was already in power. Interesting...



To understand where this grave misjudgement originated from it is also useful to look at Hitlers own ramblings in Mein Kampf. In there 'England' (Hitlers mistake not mine) was not the enemy and Germany's error in the past had been in trying to compete with England. The future lay in coming to an understanding with the English that theor power and empire were not under threat from Germany and that English agreement should be obtained for Germany to expand its borders eastwards, within Europe, into Russia.

With many people in power at the time this duality of purpose of posing no threat to us AND ambitions against the communist state was just fine and dandy. The Nazis were as good as 'on our side'. Churchill was almost a lone voice of warning of the dangers of an armed Germany with Hitler in control of it.

When reality sank in during 1935/36 it is easy for people to say we should have taken measures to stop the Germans, but that is to ignore the absolutely pathetic state of the British military at that time thanks to the disastrous 'Ten Year Rule'.


----------



## Waynos (Mar 18, 2010)

oops, it worked the first time


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 18, 2010)

Waynos and Imalko - agreed. But I think society in the '30s was as ill-informed about the dangers of communism as nazism. 

MM


----------



## parsifal (Mar 18, 2010)

shouldnt we try to steer back to the original thread topic?


----------



## Waynos (Mar 18, 2010)

Quick everyone, hide, its the thread police  ('tis merely a jest)


I think the last few posts are quite pertinent to the original premise parsifal, even if the elastic is now stretched to breaking point, in that we have explored the relationship between Russia, Germany and the other allies during this time. I don't think a question such as posed in the thread title can exist in a vacuum.

From what has emerged I don't think there was ever any possibility of the situation posed in the title ever arising. It would have made more sense, possibly, for Hitler to capitalise on the 'phoney war' and just ignore France and GB instead.

Of course he was intent on revenge against France for Versailles, so this is an equally remote possibility I suppose.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 18, 2010)

"... From what has emerged I don't think there was ever any possibility of the situation posed in the title ever arising... "

Amen to that.

Short of just ignoring the original post, I think we have given the topic a thorough work-out (except maybe the meander on Czech-Slovak hockey which I introduced ).

Parsifal - since you are being a purist on this subject (as Colin1 tried to be  at the outset) why not explain how you think Hitler could have avoided war with Stalin and communism - given the climate in Europe post 1918 of course .

MM


----------



## parsifal (Mar 18, 2010)

Simple answer....I dont think it was avaoidable. hitler had made plain his intentions concerning the Russians since mein Kampf. Defeat of Soviet Russia was so embedded into the Nazi creed as to make it inevitable that war would break out sooner or later


----------



## michaelmaltby (Mar 19, 2010)

Agreed. 

MM


----------

