Stalin’s 1939 pact with Nazis was designed to allow capitalists to weaken each other, and be ready to confront them later. Stalingrad, and other victories, provided the second chance to implement this strategy. Stalin certainly thought about it. But he probably decided that gaining control over Eastern Europe was more desirable." That is described in I a book I read recently--"Germany's Key Strategic Decisions 1940-1945." The author is Heinz Magenheimer, an Austrian military historian. This is in Chapter IV, in a section named : "The Question of 'Closing Down the Eastern Front' and a Separate German-Soviet Peace," (pages 192 to 201). It is clear to me, after reading this section, that both Hitler and Stalin were aware of this option. It was not implemented because Hitler believed that he will win militarily, even after Stalingrad. Mussolini was not the only one to suggest this idea to Hitler. Here is a quote: "Mussolini's attempts, which became tangible in written and verbal form after 6 November 1942 and which were presented to Hitler on 18 December 1942 by Foreign Minister Ciano in the form of appropriate recommendations, were based on the idea of reaching a settlement with the Soviet Union--a second 'peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk.' Mussolini and Ciano argued that within the foreseeable future all available forces would be needed to repel the anticipated invasion of Sicily and Italy by the Western powers." Sweden was a neutral country and several meetings took place in Stockholm "via various German and Soviet contacts . . . to discover how serious Germny was to conclude a separate agreement, on the basis, for example, of a return to the mutual frontiers existing before June 1941." On page 307 I see a quote from reference 49: "By a note of 12 November Molotov informed the Western Allies of the Soviet feelers via representatives in Stockholm. It appears that Stalin took this step in order to strengthen his political position vis-a-vis Great Britain and the USA." Why was Hitler so stupid? Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia) Professor Emeritus Montclair State Univestity ..
These things you mention are of great interest to me as I always see when Hitler communicated he was almost never truthful and was looking more for weaknesses he could exploit and made progress doing that with the leaders he made deals with. What would be seen as common sense to most was sometimes abandoned for the pursuit of the weaknesses instead. Another way I can express this is that he seemed almost blind to having something in common that could be exploited. Instead he took the baser path often destroying the strategy of the long run and instead pursued exploiting the leaders weaknesses he was able to view for an immediate gain. It is just a theory I have that kind of explains things for me about his thinking. It is the only way I can begin to understand some of the things he did. Common sense doesn't ever seem to work to explain his choices.
The idea of end of hostilities between the Reich and the USSR was flirted with by both sides in 1942, but not taken seriously by either dictator. Neither side was willing to give enough to achive some sort of deal.
Eh? Hitler was never interested in making peace with ‘’Jewish Bolshevism’’ he wanted to exterminate it and Stalin's peace-feelers seem more like a tactical probe to gauge German willpower during a relatively hard time for them. Frankly speaking Nazi Germany broke every solemn diplomatic pledge it ever signed didn’t really believe in the very concept of diplomacy and screwed it’s own allies to boot. There would no basis on which the U.S.S.R could've (or should've) made a lasting peace-deal with a nation that had already back-stabbed them once. Any ‘’peace treaty’’ (assuming total German withdrawal to the 1941 borders as the only acceptable outcome from a Soviet POV) would be similar in nature to British ‘’peace treaties’’ with Napoleonic France. I.E temporary expedients designed to buy time to build up forces organize for a future campaign.
