What if: Hitler didn't attacked Russia?

[michaelmaltby]

"... 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]

"... 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]

michaelmaltby,

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

 

[stasoid]

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]

"... 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]

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]

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]

"...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]

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.

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.

IMHO there is nothing praiseworthy about Stalin...

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

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

What would be less "naive" interpretation then?

 

[michaelmaltby]

"... 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Waynos]

"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]

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

 

[imalko]

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]

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]

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