Alliance between German socialism, and soviet Socialism

World War II General WWII Discussion
#1

There was a thread a few months ago where we debated if there was any way that Germany could have won the war. I believe that came to the consensus that there was just too much stacked against Germany (they were fighting countries with much larger industrial resources, larger population, etc) for them to win (though, some things like you mentioned above, would have delayed the end of the war a bit).

Of course, even though they were so ideologically opposed, it would be interesting to think about if there was some kind of alliance between the USSR and Germany.

#2

Join Date: Oct 2009Location: BelgiumPosts: 234

alliance of German socialism,and Soviet Socialism

Originally Posted by flyerhell

Of course, even though they were so ideologically opposed, it would be interesting to think about if there was some kind of alliance between the USSR and Germans

Response to Flyerhell by Steben: " Sure thing these thoughts were already once the Terror of the Western gouvernments in the late 30ties.
In pre-nazi times Germans and Russians already joined secret weapon programs.
And Stalin grasped every opportunity to delay conflict with Hitler afterwards…"

#3

To make things clear, the last post above was posted by me, not flyerhell :wink:

#4

Fixed.

#5

Heh, that could’ve been interesting…

Soviet raw materials matched with Germany’s industrial might.

I’d say those two could have easily conquered Africa and the Middle East, just due to sheer manpower, then rolled over to India. I’m not sure about how the Indians would’ve reacted, either seeing the Nazi/Soviet troops as conquerors or liberators… Then you’d have to deal with the Japanese in China, assuming the Nazi/Soviet troops made it past India. That would’ve been interesting as well, maybe a fight on racial grounds, with possible Chinese-Japanese alliance against the ‘round-eyes’…

This takes nothing into account of any islands off the shore of any conquered lands, such as the British Isles or Madagascar or Ceylon, though I don’t imagine the Soviets had that great a navy(Not that I know anything about the Soviet Navy, I’m just going on what they told me while playing Axis and Allies), or Franco in Spain… He’d probably see the Nazi/Soviet forces conquer great tracts of land and be jealous, maybe join in…

But against Nazi/Soviet combined forces, would the US see reason to join this war? Sure, the industrial base existed there, and raw materials could be brought in from Canada or South America, but would the public be willing to fight against what then would’ve been the majority of Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East?

Just what I’m thinking…

#6

Quote by Churchill: “and raw materials could be brought in from Canada or South America”
I’ve looked in the industrial indexes, and I’m not certain what we could make out of bacon, banana’s, and tequila. ('cept for maybe breakfast) :wink: :slight_smile:

#7

The foundation of a productive day is a health breakfast!!!

#8

When American Revolution was set on fire, It was almost an army of peasants rising up against 50% of the world map. Yet, that 50% was ruled by only 1,6% of the world…

Nazi/Soviet pact would lead up to 4% rulers and would stretch mainly out over land, but the adversaries wouldn’t be peasants.

#9

Well it pure theoretically , put aside the race hate of nazis toward “jewish russia” , the Nazis-Soviet military alliance might be very succesfull in fight against anglo-saxons.While the Red Army might to advance into Iran and further- the GErmans with Italy might to concentrate over Africa and “sealion” . Anyway the BRitain would have survived more then year or half. The Japane might be directed deep into the asia and Pacific, tieding the USA more and more.
However the very interesting question is - what would happend after the war should have ended? No guaranties the former Allies will have not attack the USSR later. Unless the Stalin wouldn’t reformed the soviet ideology into the pro- nazis favoure.I mean the abandoning of Marxism and creating a new ideology kinda “National-bolshevism” that take the race factor as a major factor.

#10

Yes … but along with this, Hitler would need to let go of his racist ideas concerning Slavic people as well.
Taking in account that the suppression of Slavic people and “routing” them out was the main nucleus of Nazi geopolitics, it would never happen.
Implementing antisemitism in early USSR on the other hand was very easy, since it was already vivid.

#11

Of course the White-arian ideology should be transformed as well. Slavic nations might be partly “rehabilited” in their race-hierarchy in manner like asiatic japananese nation was recognized as almost equal to GErmans nation. Finally the GErmans ideology wasn’t that hostile to all slavs - remember the Slovenians and Bulgarians were the part of axis coalition.
Soviet antisemitism also might be finally legalized during the war and post war.

#12

slavic axis … True …
Why did they reject the Ukraine as axis partner then?

#13

They have not rejected the Ukrainians. During the occupation the ukrainians ( and russian as well) volunteres were welcomed by both Heer and WaffenSS. They just rejected to grant the independence to Ukraine. Hitler , folowed the line developed in “Mein campf” seen at Ukraine, Belorussia and Russia like at German’s colony under the the rule of GErman governors ( gaulauters).This line led to hostilities with UPA since 1943, however the colloborated so called “ROA” fought in GErmans side to the most end.

#14

Royal’s post cobcerning ME-262’s has been moved to the correct thread

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?7393-Most-Effective-Tank-of-the-war.

#15

There was more than an opportunity of alliance. Of course there was an ideological hostility, but the nazism and communism have more points of conctact than of difference. The true point it’s another: Hitler wanted to destroy Russia, not just Soviet Union.
Since the time of Von Clausevitz, arriving to Bismarck, many German political leaders thought that if not an alliance, at least a good relationship with Russia was a must. This position started to change after Bismarck, with the Wilhelm II imperialism. After the WWI, the new political situation retook among the German leaders the evidence of the good opportunities of good relationships with Russia, think for example to von Seeckt, or to the agreements between Weimar Germany and Russia.
For Hitler, the alliance with Russia was just a tactic of a moment, not a strategical view. Many people inside the German leadership thought differently, especially if war with GB was not yet resolved. On this point was based the Mussolini’s attempt in 1943, with the other main Axis powers, to force Hitler to get an armistice or a peace with Russia. Read here:
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?10876-Why-did-the-Italians-lose/page6

#16

Aggressive, destructive regimes that worship violence and eternal struggle as a positive force of nature always look alike but always fight each other.

The same can be said about peaceful regimes: they always melt in each other.

#17

Why did they think the Stalin should agree to stop a war after the two years bloody compain in USSR and millions of death, especially when RED Army was about to break the military initiative to its favour ? This is pure adventurism.

#18

Because he had already adavanced twice proposal of peace or armistice; the first time in late 1941, the second a year later. Furthermore, the western Allies had promised the big landing firstly for 1942, afterwards for 1943, “reneging on their own promise” and Stalin thought they wanted to fool him, lefting to Russia the biggest burden of war. When Russia and Germany wou had very good bled and massacred each other, only then they would have intervened to win, indirectly over Russia too.

#19

Who did make the proposal of peace- Stalin or Hitler? This is something absolutly new for me. DO you have any reliable confirmations?

Furthermore, the western Allies had promised the big landing firstly for 1942, afterwards for 1943, “reneging on their own promise” and Stalin thought they wanted to fool him, lefting to Russia the biggest burden of war. When Russia and Germany wou had very good bled and massacred each other, only then they would have intervened to win, indirectly over Russia too.

But why then allies did launch the wide lend-lise help for Russia. Not to mention the bloody firebombing compain which they started since 1943 over germany.FInaly the landing in Sicily in 1943. Do you mean the west did nothing serious to break Germany and wanted to stay it in war with Russia as long as possible?

#20

Stalin of course. Read here my last post http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?10876-Why-did-the-Italians-lose/page6 :

About the sources on the matter (those I know):

Bodo Sheurig, “Das nationalkomitee und der Bund Deutcher Offiziere in der Sowietunion 1943-45”, Munich 1960.
Gianfranco Bianchi, “Perchè e come cadde il fascismo: 25 luglio crollo di un regime”, Milano 1963.
Joachim von Ribbentrop, “Zwichen london und Moskau”, Leoni 1953
“Trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg military tribunals”, Washington 1951
Peter Kleist, “Zwichen Hitler und Stalin”, Bonn 1950
Fulvio Bellini, Gianfranco Bellini, “Storia Segreta del 25 luglio '43”, Milano 1993
(plus others that at the moment I should look for in my library…).

No, I meant that was what Stalin thought. He thaught that the Allies were temporizing to let him alone against Hitler, and make them massacre each other.