An an expediency measure which he expected to help him defeat his sworn ideological enemy, the USSR, in the long term
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
An an expediency measure which he expected to help him defeat his sworn ideological enemy, the USSR, in the long term
And they lived long and in peace forev... no wait for only 2 years. Both Hitler and Stalin were perfectly aware that this was a purely temporary measure. Hitler embarked on his eastern adventure as soon as he thought the situation in the west would allow for it and Stalin put as much resources into building up the red army as possible.
Right. That had nothing to do with the USSR being socialist though. Germany needed an eastern empire for the Thousand Year Reich. Same thing was tried against Tsarist Russia in WW1.
It had everything to do with the USSR beeing socialist because that was a major factor why Hitler did never seek any longterm alliance with it and why the complete destruction of its political structures had such a high priority. There was never an equivalent for the infamour Kommissarbefehl in the west for example. There were no liquidation commandos sent after the political elites of France, Denmark, Belgium or the Netherlands all of which were largely designated to be annexed or in the case of France transformed into Satelite states. While Hitler despised Liberalism just as much as Socialism he never considered it as much of a threat.
In WW1 German ambitions in the east were far less ideologically driven and the two regimes that were at war were quite willing to let the other survive. German actions in the east during WW1 did nowhere come close to establishing devoted Death Squads and Extermination Camps just to clean up the place as it happened in WW2. Brest-Litowsk as the culmination of the Eastern Campaign was nothing like the fate would have expected the Soviet State its people and their government if NS Germany had won its war of extermination in the east.
In WW1 German ambitions in the east were far less ideologically driven and the two regimes that were at war were quite willing to let the other survive. German actions in the east during WW1 did nowhere come close to establishing devoted Death Squads and Extermination Camps just to clean up the place as it happened in WW2. Brest-Litowsk as the culmination of the Eastern Campaign was nothing like the fate would have expected the Soviet State its people and their government if NS Germany had won its war of extermination in the east.
Last edited:
But that was also because Western Europe was not deemed suitable for lebensraum and the reason for that was a mixture of practicality, race & culture and other issues that were not necessarily connected to the political system. Look how long the socialists in Denmark held power for instance. If France had been controlled by communists the German occupation would not IMHO have been drastically different following the German victory. But note German treatment of Poland which had spent decades as a far right republic, I don't believe it was that much better than German treatment of the Ukraine.
It is not same at all. WWI Germany sought to establish puppet states in the former Russian lands. WWII Germany sought to annihilate all of the local populations and to settle ethnic Germans in the area. Hitler saw the East as the necessary "living space" while for WWI politicians, the east was just containing another enemy state.
I think the fundamental impulse was the same (there certainly was a serious ambition to colonise vast swathes of eastern Europe by the Kaisereich as well. Now realistically I think the Kaiser would have kept that from happening outside of the Baltic anyway, but colonising the Crimean peninsula did not just originate with the SS.
The concept that Germany needed to expand east was a fairly standard view, the Nazis were merely far more extreme than others who would have been content with puppet states.
I don't get people who blames Stalin for reaching an agreement with Hitler. This is clearly viewpoint of the British side who had to face Germany before Soviets.
Stalin obtained the best agreement for the interests of Soviet Union. He saved Soviet Union from being the first victim of Fascism ( Let the capitalists fight each other ). The Allied hypocrites treated the Soviets like a third-rate power and but when things went wrong, they didn't hesistate to blame the Soviets. The Allies never considered anti-fascist alliance with Soviets seriously. On the other hand, Soviets prior to 1939 showed that they were quite willing to form an anti-fascist front with the Allies.
Besides that, Stalin extended Soviets to the further West with M-R Pact. This was important in terms of strategic situation. No one in the world predicted Germans taking over France within 6 weeks. So, Stalin cannot be blamed for this. His strategy was both the Allies and Germany bleeding each other and then Soviets overwhelming Germany from the East. He may be accused for not foreseeing German attack on June 22 but he certainly prepared Red Army for an eventual war with fascism. Soviet war machine Stalin created from 1930s onward showed that it was more productive than German counter-part.
Stalin was certainly a cruel man but IMO his long-term decisions showed that he was one of the most able leaders of his era.
Stalin obtained the best agreement for the interests of Soviet Union. He saved Soviet Union from being the first victim of Fascism ( Let the capitalists fight each other ). The Allied hypocrites treated the Soviets like a third-rate power and but when things went wrong, they didn't hesistate to blame the Soviets. The Allies never considered anti-fascist alliance with Soviets seriously. On the other hand, Soviets prior to 1939 showed that they were quite willing to form an anti-fascist front with the Allies.
Besides that, Stalin extended Soviets to the further West with M-R Pact. This was important in terms of strategic situation. No one in the world predicted Germans taking over France within 6 weeks. So, Stalin cannot be blamed for this. His strategy was both the Allies and Germany bleeding each other and then Soviets overwhelming Germany from the East. He may be accused for not foreseeing German attack on June 22 but he certainly prepared Red Army for an eventual war with fascism. Soviet war machine Stalin created from 1930s onward showed that it was more productive than German counter-part.
Stalin was certainly a cruel man but IMO his long-term decisions showed that he was one of the most able leaders of his era.
How the hell could USSR fall the first victim if it didn't even share border with Germany? USSR acquired border with Germany only after they jointly divided sovereign states that were between them.
Hitler was big fan of Poland. After all they were only continent nation that defeated Lenins USSR. Only after it become clear Piland would not do deal with him and Poland was completely crushed he decided to annihilate it.
No, he wasn't. He hated Slavs and he killed 6m Poles, so he wasn't a big fan of it at all. In any case, the answer to me question is 'no' for anyone who knows what they are talking about.
the MR pact, while morally indefensible, made perfect strategic sense from a Soviet POV in the context.
First victim. He wrote first victim.
Hitler would grab or not. He might had not attacked at all and if he did, the campaign would drag into 1940.
You are right. Being victim once Germany overruns Poland within 4 weeks.
The problem is why should Stalin care for Poland ? It was natural enemy of Soviet Union. British, Poles and French never took Soviet Union seriously. They didn't even call Soviets to the most important conferences. There was only one way for Stalin to keep his country out of war as long as possible : Partition of Poland with Germany. This agreement unleashed German war machine against the French first. That was the success of M-R Pact.
He should care about it because if he lets Hitler take all of it, panzers are 100-odd miles closer to Moscow.
What i mean is that why shouldn't he act against Poland ? Poland was a hostile state for Soviets. For Stalin, grabbing a chunk of Poland and directing Hitler to the West was killing two birds with one stone. It wasn't dishonorable act as was portrayed by the Allies.
As I said, I consider it deeply immoral but a strategic no-brainer.