Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your other thread got locked, now your posting here. What is it you are getting at?
Yes, Hitler's desires for conquest lay to the east. No, it is not pre-destined that the two would fight. In fact, there is little evidence that Russia would have unilaterally invaded Germany. They were preparing for war, of course, but there is no evidence they were preparing to invade Germany.
Hitler didn't want to fight France and the UK until AFTER he conquered the east. The theory was to ally with them (in paricular the British) in his war against the Bolsheviks. Once that war was complete and Germany's resource needs secured, he could freely turn west and force them into alignment with his Reich. He did not see France and the UK as perpetual "friends", but future subjects.
It was not entirely worthless. There was even very serious negotiations about having the Soviet Union join the Tripartite Pact. War makes for strange bedfellows. When France and the UK did not simply stand aside and let Hitler have Poland for free, he needed to deal with them while keeping the Soviets (whom Germany depended on for raw matierals) at least neutral
This is a great point, Hitler was well known for hating communism and the Bolsheviks. The Nazis persecuted communists in Germany proper, many of whom were killed by the regime.
I dont know, and this is just an opinion obviously as I was not there, but I dont think Hitler believed France and the UK were willing to go to war over Poland.
Re:
"Absent a "Pearl Harbor", it is doubtful whether or not the US would have gotten directly involved at all. The American public was strongly isolationist at the time"
So true. Roosevelt , prior to Pearl, went to sleep at night no doubt thinking how he can keep the U.S. out of the war. After WW I, the American people sure didn't want to get involved with squabbles over there in Europe or Asia. And also the U.S. wasn't ready militarily. In fact, Roosevelt had to move ships in the Pacific over in '40 to help the British navy in the Atlantic war on the seas. Why? The Germans were winning then and the British were hard pressed.
And this really showed the problems Roosevelt faced with US participation in the war. Trying to figure out the consequences of predations by the Japanese for territory in the Pacific and the corresponding issues with Hitler on the continent and on Britain. For both, if he did something in one theater that dealt with threats there was always the fear that it would affect Allied responses in the other theater. And he got many different opinions from everybody.
Have to hand it to Roosevelt he seemed to know that he definitely need a real cause for the nation to enter the war against Germany. He really knew that if he was going to put the U.S. in a war everybody had to be on the same page. If not that would have brought many difficulties in dealing with the prosecution of the war both to Germany and Japan especially the one in who to deal with first. And then there was Russia to add to the war equation. Indeed Roosevelt et al were busy men during '40 and '41. They earned their stripes.
I seriously disagree with that.
I think Stalin caused far more damage and pain to the world than Hitler did. Nazism is doomed to be short lived, but Stalinism persisted for decades.
That pretty much explains everything about your motivations in this thread.
Both were evil monsters. Had Germany prevailed over Russia, Nazism would have prevailed, at least in Europe and Northern Africa, for many years to come. Communism would have been limited to Southeast Asia in the regions not conquered by the Japanese. Had the U.S. not entered the conflict, the Japanese very likely would have eliminated communism.
well yes, but it had always been Hitler's dream to destroy Bolshevism. The hatred was mutual and Russia would have attacked Germany if it were not attacked first anyway. The German-Russia war seemed inevitable, but the German-France/UK war might not be.
You are correct about the first part, but wrong about the second. Hitler always intended to defeat France and wanted revenge for the Treaty of Versailles. Defeating France was also viewed by Hitler and the Germans as a prelude to defeating the Soviets. German military doctrine dating back to Bismark was to invade France first, then Russia to avoid a two-front war. Hitler followed this exact script to the letter. He signed the non-aggression pact to keep the Soviets at bay while he turned west and unleashed on France. Then he regrouped and turned his attention east.
Had Hitler ignored France and the U.K. and just invaded Russia, he would have done so with 5 million Allied troops on his western border. Not to mention an ever-increasing British Expeditionary Force presence on the continent and the possibility of millions of U.S. troops arriving over time and massing on the border.
That pretty much explains everything about your motivations in this thread.
Both were evil monsters. Had Germany prevailed over Russia, Nazism would have prevailed, at least in Europe and Northern Africa, for many years to come. Communism would have been limited to Southeast Asia in the regions not conquered by the Japanese. Had the U.S. not entered the conflict, the Japanese very likely would have eliminated communism.
to some extend, yes. I considered Stalin to be more evil than Hitler.
Nazism was more like a fad, lacking the deep theoretical foundation communism has. It was more hinged on the personal charisma of one person - Hitler. Once he dies, Nazism would die down. Communism on the other hand, will prevail for a very long time.
Even the tragic death resulting from the Holocaust pales against the massacre Stalin has caused, directly and indirectly. Outside Soviet Union and East Europe, in China for example, millions died under Mao's ruling - either from prosecution or man-made famine. That wouldn't have happened if Stalin hadn't prevailed like the biggest winner.
NJGOAT"As far as "abandoning Central/Eastern Europe", there really wasn't much of a choice. There was the small matter of about 13+ million Soviet soldiers with boots on the ground and the blood of millions more that was spent in pushing the Nazi's out. Before you go there, war against the Soviet Union would have been impossible for the US and Britain to win at that time. See "Operation Unthinkable". Like it or not, the Soviet Union was going to take what it wanted.
Stalin wasn't excatly soft and cuddly, but I don't agree that he was at the level of "Hitler evil"."
AMEN. Hitler sadly, was in an evil League of his own, and we could have, and shouldhave, stopped him soonly..by eliminating Germany if need be.
The entire notion of debating whether Hitler or Stalin was 'more evil' is absurd. It's like trying to figure out whether Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy was 'worse'. When it came to human life and human suffering, neither man had any scruples. They slaughtered as a means to various dubious ends, both political and personal.
The main difference between the two was not moral but practical. There was no living with Hitler, as he did not respond to normal mechanisms of deterrence. He prioritized German territorial expansion above all else, including the existence of not only an independent Germany but of his own life. To make matters worse, he was brash and reckless and unwilling to learn from his mistakes. Stalin, though no better as a person, was a relatively cautious man who only seized territory when he held an overwhelming strategic advantage (ex: Finland) or when it fell into his lap as a result of beating off the German attack (ex: eastern Europe).
These characteristics made Hitler an immediate threat that had to be dealt with promptly. It also made Stalin a potentially more dangerous threat, as he could be expected to survive on a long-term basis, making his state and his military more and more powerful over time. With himself - and his successors - at the helm, however, this was a state that was responsive, as noted above, by traditional modes of big-stick deiplomacy (ie, Kennan's classic containment).
It is folly to think that one or the other must be categorizable as 'better' and the other as 'worse'. The real world is usually far more complicated than that, as in this case.
When I think of Soviet Russia, I can't help but think of the bear in the woods from Reagan's 1984 presidential campaign. They may not have been an immanent threat but one we shouldn't forget about. Hitler was kind of like ISIS In that the threat was more known and had a stronger potential.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
