Stalin

[SorelusImperion]

And how holocaust is linked with german policies during occupation of Soviet Union territories? Germany do not invade USSR to kill soviet jews. It was a bonus objective so to speak.

The war against the Soviet Union was always planned as an ideological war and the supposed jewishness along with the ideological conflict was a key factor.

There is nothing logical about the Nazi's attitude to Judaism. Lets not forget Hitler planned to send all of Germany's jews to Madagascar!

Even madness such as the NS ideology can have an logical conclusion to it because there was a internal structure that lead from one step to the next. And the extermination of the Jews was the logical conclusion of NS thinking structure while Madagascar only represented a fleeting thought. The extermination of undesirables ranging from political opposition to gays, gypsys or the ill (read up on Euthanasie) began right after the Nazis took power and there was no reason to assume that they wouldn't deal with the Jews in the same manner as they had with all other undesirables so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_long_knives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_euthanasia_in_Nazi_Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4

With the Soviet Union representing the manifestation of all that is bad in the eyes of teh Nazi leadership a war of extermination was always going to happen. That the fate of the slavs would be to become slaves rather than beeing completely exterminated like the Jews was only a slight consolation.

 

[CruelDwarf]

They saw USSR as an inherently Jewish system, so in a way the goal was to kill Jews - killing USSR means killing its Jews as well.

There is slight problem with such interpretation - nazies in general didn't want to exterminate all the jews (or other groups hated by them) in the world. They only wanted to exterminate them in the lands which nazies owned.
So killing the jews isn't the reason for invasion, but secondary result of it.

 

[jamhaw]

There is slight problem with such interpretation - nazies in general didn't want to exterminate all the jews (or other groups hated by them) in the world. They only wanted to exterminate them in the lands which nazies owned.
So killing the jews isn't the reason for invasion, but secondary result of it.

Frankly what the Nazis wanted was to get rid of the Jews, if that could be done humanely then they were fine with that. It was only later in the war, when other options began to disappear that genocide gained the upper hand as the only option.

Although ideological differences played a role in the German attack Germany's eastern drive was inevitable as a result of the Nazi need for lebensraum. Hitler had no serious interest in overeseas expansion and colonising Western Europe was out of the question so they had to strike east.

 

[trybald]

It was only later in the war, when other options began to disappear that genocide gained the upper hand as the only option.

That could be true only if the genocide started somewhere in late 1943, when Germany's realistic hopes for a decisive victory have all but vanished. However, the genocide (as opposed to earlier persistent discrimination and occasional massacres) started in summer 1941, when German leadership was in the midst of euphoria following the stunning successes of the fist stages of Barbarossa. At that time, and long afterwards, Germany had lots of options that didn't involve outright extermination of Jews. Actually one of these options, resettlement to the East, was cynically used as an euphemism for extermination.

The Holocaust was not fueled by fears that the time is running out. Rather, it was triggered by feeling that victors can do anything they ever wanted.

 

[Arilou]

That could be true only if the genocide started somewhere in late 1943, when Germany's realistic hopes for a decisive victory have all but vanished. However, the genocide (as opposed to earlier persistent discrimination and occasional massacres) started in summer 1941, when German leadership was in the midst of euphoria following the stunning successes of the fist stages of Barbarossa. At that time, and long afterwards, Germany had lots of options that didn't involve outright extermination of Jews. Actually one of these options, resettlement to the East, was cynically used as an euphemism for extermination.

The Holocaust was not fueled by fears that the time is running out. Rather, it was triggered by feeling that victors can do anything they ever wanted.

It's a bit more complex, it was not so much that "time is running out" as "This isn't going to end right now."

 

[makif130289]

No way. Stalin's massive industrialization defeated Germany in the end. Without Stalin and his 1930s miracle, Soviets would have collapsed.

Yes he was a bad guy but a farsighted one in the long run.

 

[trybald]

No way. Stalin's massive industrialization defeated Germany in the end. Without Stalin and his 1930s miracle, Soviets would have collapsed.

Yes he was a bad guy but a farsighted one in the long run.

If it wasn't for Stalin, WW2 would never erupt in the first place. Hitler wouldn't dare to attack without his back secured and resource trade courtesy of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

 

[CruelDwarf]

If it wasn't for Stalin, WW2 would never erupt in the first place. Hitler wouldn't dare to attack without his back secured and resource trade courtesy of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

I don't think so. No one at the time really considered Soviet Union as serious power. So Hitler could attack Poland even without pact with SU. It really change nothing.
And resource trade can happen even without any pacts. Because Germany have stuff that USSR wants and vice versa.

The only thing that realistically can stop the war is the open military alliance between SU and Britain/France. But it is also improbable because both France and Britain do not take USSR seriously enough to accept hefty soviet demands for such alliance. And Soviets in turn weren't ready to accept any lesser deal because their (russian) past memories of Entente deal.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

If it wasn't for Stalin, WW2 would never erupt in the first place. Hitler wouldn't dare to attack without his back secured and resource trade courtesy of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

What makes you say this?




also, have any serious historians done an analysis of Stalin's personality and psychology?

 

[SorelusImperion]

Alan Bullock wrote a good book about Stalin and Hitler.

http://www.amazon.de/Hitler-Stalin-Parallel-Alan-Bullock/dp/0006863744

Hitler wouldn't dare to attack without his back secured and resource trade courtesy of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

The same Hitler who was already willing to go to war over Sudetenland without Soviet backing ? Make no mistake while the pact between Germany and the USSR played an important role Hitler was a gambler and was evidently willing to take huge risks. Soviet support was convienient but not necessary in his mind.

 

[Semper Victor]

Stalin's worst scenario in the late 1930's was to be left alone to fight Hitler by himself. He feared that the western allies would stand by the sides if Hitler attacked the USSR and would then proceed to join the war when both Germany and the SU had destryed each other and then get to pick the pieces. After the Munich agreement, Stalin began to deal with both sides: openly with the Allies, and in secret with Hitler. A clear sign of this new approach was the replacement as Soviet Foreign Minister of the aliadophile Maxim Litvinov by one of the members of Stalin's inner circle, the efficient and cynical Vyacheslav Molotov. What both dictators sought with the August 1939 pact was time: Hitler, for dealing with Poland without fear of a Soviet intervention on behalf of the western allies, and Stalin to complete his massive expansion of the Red Army. The economic terms of the agreement, while extremely important for the Germans (not so for the Soviets), were not the main reason for signing the non-agression pact.

In the end, nothing went as any of them had expected. Despite having assured the SU's neutrality and thus deprived the Poles of any realistic hope for useful military help, the Poles refused to back down, and the western allies, to Hitlers's chagrin, went to war in a moment that did not suit Hitler's plans. By October 1939, the great winner of the deal seemed to be Stalin, as Hitler was now embroiled in what everybody thought that would be a repetition of the bloody stalemate of the Great War while Stalin still kept all his options open and was free to join the war when he chose, on the side that he prefered and in the moment that best suited him. But again, the German victory in the West meant a new total tunaround and left Stalin in a worse position than he'd been before signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

 

[Calad]

I like to believe in humanity so world without Stalin could have been better place. But some central points of Stalins policy:

1. Executing old Bolsheviks and totalitarism, winning WW2

Most likely the worst crime of Stalin was executing almost all old Bolsheviks. They were members of party and so on dedicated their life on revolution. It has been said that because of Stalin war was won in the end but because of Stalin it was almost lost as well. I cant imagine any worst situation than 1941 - Germans from Warsaw to Moscow. Now why I unite these topics the old Bolsheviks were extreamly ruthless as well, specially Trostky. He won civil war, so no matter who would have lead USSR resistance would have been equal fanatical without huge defeats of 1941.

2. Preventing cooperation of German communist and socialist

Had these parties worked together against Hitler he would have had much more difficult times to rise in power. Nazis in the end gained power because of political deals and two biggest parties in Germany refised to cooperate against him.

3. Spanish civil war

Stalins long-term plan here was to make Spain a Soviet puppet. Any other option was a failure. Could republic have defeated Fascist if Soviets would have not politically backstabbed republic?

4. Molotov-Ribbentrov pact and phony war

What if USSR had backstabbed Germany instead of letting Germany first deal France and almost UK. Had years 1941-42 never happened? Only speculations.

 

[CruelDwarf]

The economic terms of the agreement, while extremely important for the Germans (not so for the Soviets), were not the main reason for signing the non-agression pact.

It was really important for the Soviets. They bought a number of highly critical industrial equipment from the germans which was cruicial for upgrading key factories in SU. For example mass-scale production of T-34 and KV tanks were impossible without this trade deal. Only real alternative was buying similar equipment from the americans but it wasn't very likely because american disposition towards SU at this time. Also german stuff can be paid for by natural resources supply while americans will not accept a payment in such form. And foreign currency was always in the short supply for SU.

I like to believe in humanity so world without Stalin could have been better place. But some central points of Stalins policy:

1. Executing old Bolsheviks and totalitarism, winning WW2

Most likely the worst crime of Stalin was executing almost all old Bolsheviks. They were members of party and so on dedicated their life on revolution. It has been said that because of Stalin war was won in the end but because of Stalin it was almost lost as well. I cant imagine any worst situation than 1941 - Germans from Warsaw to Moscow. Now why I unite these topics the old Bolsheviks were extreamly ruthless as well, specially Trostky. He won civil war, so no matter who would have lead USSR resistance would have been equal fanatical without huge defeats of 1941.

There is slight problems with that. The Purge (on such scale) wasn't a desired result for Stalin at all. He wanted relatively contained and limited cleansing of the communist party from supporters of his political opponents. To do this he (through his supporters in NKVD apparatus) somewhat "reformed" soviet judicial practices to create easy ways/loopholes to prosecute people on political charges.
But this "reform" had unexpected result. People started to use this loopholes on their own accord to finish not Stalin's political opponents, but their own enemies. And this just spiralled out of control of any person or institution in Soviet Union.
But this is real problem with public perception about limits of Stalin's power and control over soviet society.

So even if Stalin would start the Purge someone other will. Or there will be some sort of Civil War (like happened in Spain). Amount of tensions inside political elite and society as whole was too great at this time.

2. Preventing cooperation of German communist and socialist

Had these parties worked together against Hitler he would have had much more difficult times to rise in power. Nazis in the end gained power because of political deals and two biggest parties in Germany refised to cooperate against him.

This is too very popular but incorrect myth. German socialists and german communists were bitter enemies for a long time because of "socialist treachery" during failed german communist revolution. Stalin or no Stalin german communists didn't want to cooperate with socialists at all, because they saw them as "collaborators with capitalist opressors".

What if USSR had backstabbed Germany instead of letting Germany first deal France and almost UK. Had years 1941-42 never happened? Only speculations.

Some form of rematch of WWI. With just one important difference - in 1914 France was hit by greater part of german power and France was ready and willing to take this fight and end it. While in 1939-40 France wasn't ready and wasn't really willing. So it is perfectly possible variant for England and France to sit tight and watch how Germany and USSR maul each others.

 

[Eusebio]

The war against the Soviet Union was always planned as an ideological war and the supposed jewishness along with the ideological conflict was a key factor.

Nah. If Germany could ally with the USSR to divide Eastern Europe up together, how much of an ideological conflict was there really?

Germany tried pretty much the same thing in WW1: the only way Germany could be a global hegemon is if European Russia was subjugated.

 

[trybald]

Alan Bullock wrote a good book about Stalin and Hitler.

http://www.amazon.de/Hitler-Stalin-Parallel-Alan-Bullock/dp/0006863744



The same Hitler who was already willing to go to war over Sudetenland without Soviet backing ? Make no mistake while the pact between Germany and the USSR played an important role Hitler was a gambler and was evidently willing to take huge risks. Soviet support was convienient but not necessary in his mind.

Poland was a gamble of a completely different magnitude. Neither Britain nor France had any obligation to aid Czechoslovakia, while both had signed treaties of alliance with Poland. Hitler was by no means certain, as exemplified by his last minute change of a date of invasion (not all units received orders on time and fights broke out in some isolated areas). I find it hard to believe that he would start without securing USSR's neutrality.

 

[jamhaw]

It's a bit more complex, it was not so much that "time is running out" as "This isn't going to end right now."

Precisely, once Madagascar or Palestine ceased to be feasible the Germans had to make some decisions regarding the Jewish population, which was rapidly growing with each new conquest. Eventually a general extermination gained the upper hand. Had Germany won the war in the west in 1940, or had the British been willing to accept a German evacuation of the Jews to Madagascar (which would have been a bureaucratic nightmare alongside everything else - probably not feasible in a wartime situation) those calling for mass extermination would probably have been more marginal.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Nah. If Germany could ally with the USSR to divide Eastern Europe up together, how much of an ideological conflict was there really?

Explain the logic you are using here, please?

 

[SorelusImperion]

Nah. If Germany could ally with the USSR to divide Eastern Europe up together, how much of an ideological conflict was there really?

Nah if the USA could ally with the Soviet Union how much of an ideological conflict was there realy ?

 

[Eusebio]

Explain the logic you are using here, please?

The fact that the Nazi-Soviet pact happened throws doubt on the thesis that Hitler invaded the USSR because it was socialist. Why then did he ally with Stalin against capitalist Poland?

Nah if the USA could ally with the Soviet Union how much of an ideological conflict was there realy ?

Correct, there wasn't an ideological conflict overriding material realities. "Peaceful coexistence" after all.

Russia and the US are still geopolitical enemies decades after the end of the USSR.

 

[Lord Finnish]

Hitler allied with Stalin against capitalist Poland for the same reason democratic US funded fascist dictators in the third world: common enemy.