Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Hitler/Stalin and the conquest of Europe

Discussion in 'What If - European Theater - Western Front & Atlan' started by Ron, Sep 10, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ron

    Ron Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2000
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    3
    Continuation from topic in General discussion...go crazy.

    [ 10 September 2002, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: Ron ]
     
  2. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    48
    Well, this new topic might be good, to discuss the expansion of Germany and socialist Russia...

    BUT it was not a good idea to close the other topic, Ron. What if we want to post more comments about the person of the Führer, I wonder...
     
  3. AndyW

    AndyW Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2000
    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    1
    Let's roll on:

    "them" means Poland, I suppose? Correct me if I understand that wrong.

    I think you all have a certain tendency to take Soviet actions in the war and post-war area as "proof" for any pre-WWII-goals.

    That fact that the USSR installed her puppet regimes in Eastern Europe from 1939-40 (cont'd 1944-1946) onwards is not a proof for an earlier imperialistic expansion policy of her, really.

    I really ask you to get off the hindsight and think in the respective time periods: 1939 before the pact, 1939-1941 with the pact in place and 1941 after the German Invasion.

    AFAIK, the USSR wasn't "agressive" prior to the Hitler Stalin-pact; to the contrary, the USSR was more or less a "victim" of acts of agression: The "imperialistic" powers Britain, France and U.S.A.(?),as much as Poland in 1920. Japan in 1939. The USSR had their interests in Eastern Europe, yes, and "world revolution" was somewhat their far-away, overall goal (just like the Wilsonian ideals or FDR's later Atlantic Charta were). Expandition (better: Imperialism) was pretty fashionable in that times (Italy, Britain, U.S.A., Japan etc.).

    However, there is no proof whatsoever (at least nobody was able to present it so far on this forum) that the USSR planned or wanted to roll over Eastern Europe until 1939, with Hitler being the only showstopper avoiding that. If you have something supporting that claim, please post it.

    The USSR was somewhat "happy" with the "Cordon Sanitaire" until 1939, of course they were no friends of Poland, who inavded the USSR in the 1920-ies and took a good part of her soil, but for the time being, the USSR was happy that they didn't became a victim of outside agression during her hard times of "internal stabilization" (=terror).

    Naturally, as Britain and France selled away a part of the "Cordon Sanitaire" (Czechoslovakia) without any Soviet consolidation, for nothing but time THEY needed, USSR became suspicious. After realizing that Poland was next, and that Britain wasn't willing to offer anything but the prospective that the USSR had to go to war with Germany, realpolitik started to work: Hitler offered Stalin VERY much, just to be free to invade Poland. Too much for Stalin to say no, as more as he knew that Britain/France might well go to war with Germany over that...the better for the USSR.

    You can blame Stalin for acting like any Imperialistic leader in his time, especially from 1939 onwards, but you have to show me something in order to convince me that the USSR's expansion was "stopped just by Hitler".

    I'd say it was emphazised by Britain and Hitler in their successful attempts to crush the "Cordon Sanitaire", opening the seal dividing
    the USSR from the Great European Powers.

    I know this sound very much as a Stalin excuse song to many of you. You don't have to agree, take it as brain food.

    And I will fold down if reasonable evidence for Stalin's imperialistic goals
    towards Eastern and Central Europe _before_ Hitler invited him to join the great, 1939 "take-the-land-party" is presented.

    Cheers,

    [ 10 September 2002, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: AndyW ]
     
  4. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    48
    Well, Stalin knew pretty well that nazi Germany and stalinist Russia were going to get involved in an ieological and survival struggle. Hitler said it very clearly in "Mein Kamp" and Stalin, being a very clever man as he was, knew it. So, why was Stalin reorganising the Red Army in the late 1930s? Because the USSR had to defend itself from agressors and take revenge of countries like Poland and Finland which had "attacked" her. I accept that the USSR was a victim in her first ages. But obviously, it didn't want to act like that anymore. Stalin was going to defend in the best way there is to defend: attacking. Marshalls Simeon Timoschenko and Georgi Zhúkov had warned Stalin that a pre-eventive attack should be launch against nazi Germany at about 1943 or so. And I can imagine that if it would have happened that way, Germany would have been defeated and then the Red Giant would have been unstopable. Well, that is how I see the facts.
     
  5. Ron

    Ron Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2000
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    3
    That's a valid point, i will reopen the other thread for that purpose.
     
  6. dasreich

    dasreich Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    1
    AndyW; I dont mean walk over in a literal sense; I mean bullying them around. You also said that the USSR was the victim prior to ww2. Yes, they were, and what do victims want most? Revenge.

    Friedrich is right about the proposed pre-emptive strike against Germany. With a successful strike against the Germans, then who would stop them when they hit Brussels, Rome, Paris, or even Madrid? Is a matter of oppurtunity. Without Hitler, Europe is weak and divided in the 30's and 40's. A VERY tempting target to a nation under leninist communism, which is all about "world-wide revolution." Since Hitler DID come to power, and Germany became strong, whatever plans the Soviets might have had would need revision. We will never know for certain what could have happened, and consequently, little proof is available. What we have is speculation.
     
  7. Steve

    Steve Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    339
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hi Andy: You are still missing the point. No one here is going to offer any proof of a "planned" Soviet invasion because no one is saying that Russia was going to attack. The point is that without Hitler restoring Germany, Russia "would have" had an easy time over running Europe.
     
  8. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    48
    Well said, Steve.

    It is obvious that there are very few sources for this because it didn't happen that way. But interpretating USSR's political moves in those years and knowing the expansionist charachter of Stalin and his men it results to be quite plausible. But it is not a real thing. It is speculation and everyone speculates in a different way.
     
  9. AndyW

    AndyW Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2000
    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    1
    So we're crediting Hitler for giving away Poland to an USSR who wasn't about to invade anyway, in order to "stop" her from doing something by inviting her to do it???

    O.K. maybe my ESL skills are too bad, or I just don't get the idea, I'm not a clever guy, so let's use the picture for my better understanding:

    I hate my neighbor (Mr. P) and want to see him dead and his house and furniture be mine, so I offer Mr. P's other neighbor (Mr. S) to allow me to kill Mr. P, he'll get the half of his house and furniture for that. Mr. S, who has a big house and no axe to grind with Mr.P, but however had no plans to invade Mr. P by himself before, likes that idea and agrees.

    I attack Mr. P and the rest of the street hates me for that, but as Mr. S is quiet, I'm save.

    Later on, I attack Mr. S., but unfortunately Mr.S is stronger than me and we're ending up with Mr. S sitting in his own, former Mr.P's and my house, all three badly demaged.

    But I explain that I saved the rest of the street from Mr. S. because if I would have been just a small neighbour in a small house, I would never killed Mr. P or offered Mr. S an agreement to this effect, neither I would have attacked Mr. S.

    So I argue that Mr. S surely would have attacked Mr. P., me, the entire street, because...yes, because why? Just because he had a big house and because he showed to be agressive from the time on when Mr. S and me attacked Mr. P? :confused:

    Cheers,

    [ 11 September 2002, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: AndyW ]
     
  10. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    22,347
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    "Stalin’s main political agenda was “socialism in one country”. This was the point at which his platform had always differed from Trotsky’s. While Trotsky advocated world revolution, Stalin believed that revolution must occur in one country first – thus the slogan “socialism in one country”. He believed that his program of consolidating socialism within the Soviet Union, although it would demand sacrifice and extreme discipline, would in the end benefit the USSR by rendering it immune to attacks by capitalist nations and would also demonstrate the superiority of the socialist system. He did not believe that his country should have to be the torchbearer for world revolution. "

    From the site:

    http://www.dickinson.edu/~history/dictators/stalin_dictator1.html

    Check Stalin´s ideology in short:

    http://www.dickinson.edu/~history/dictators/stalin_ideology.html#key2

    And on nazi Germany and Stalin:

    "Although the 1930s saw the consolidation of Stalin's personal power, the bureaucratic regime was not a stable phenomenon. Bonapartism by its very nature is a regime of social crisis. Stalin became obsessed with internal security and therefore attempted to establish "normal" diplomatic relations with the capitalist powers. After 1933, Stalin hoped to establish closer relations with Hitler's Germany. "Of course, we are far from being enthusiastic about the fascist regime in Germany," stated Stalin. "But fascism is not the issue here, if only for the reason that fascism in Italy, for example, has not prevented the USSR from establishing the best relations with that country." But after being rebuffed by Hitler, and alarmed by the rapid rearmament of Germany that was taking place, Stalin began searching for other allies. He quickly joined the League of Nations, which had been previously denounced as a "thieves' kitchen" by Lenin. In order to counter the military threat, the Comintern was called upon to promote "collective security". This was part and parcel of a sharp change in policy announced at the Seventh Congress of the Comintern in 1935: the policy of Popular Frontism. In 1943, as a further gesture to the imperialist allies, Stalin dissolved the Comintern altogether."

    From site:

    http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~socappeal/russia/part3.html

    During the 1930´s Stalin was busy clearing his country. The effect of nazi Germany seems evident to me though, as Stalin was forced to change his politics a couple of times from making allies against Germany to being Germany´s ally. Without the nazi power we don´t know what Russia might have done. But by the looks of Stalin´s ideas he was closer to defending than attacking. If Trotsky would have been in the lead or co-lead it would have been totally different I think.

    For Russia operation Barbarossa was a " lucky incident" as it brought it back to contact with the western allies. With the US industry against them Germany would have probably lost the war in the end and Russia and communism would have not benefitted as much as they did in the eastern Europe.This is discussed in the sites as well. Maybe that way Patton would have even got his tanks to Moscow, who knows, as Russia may have been classified as nazi Germany´s friend??

    [​IMG]
     
  11. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    22,347
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    Sorry about some things missing in the last part.

    Of course it should say that if Germany would not have attacked Russia then the situation would have been quite different for Russia if Germany had lost in the west. Communism had not captured the eastern Europe( or waited and attacked Germany in the back at theright moment? ) and would not have the kind of experienced army it did.

    Yes, I think this will be a long conversation, indeed.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Ron

    Ron Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2000
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    3
    I agree with Kai and Andy. It is a very vague point to assume had there been no Hitler the Soviet union would have gone to the channel coast of France.
    BUT that leads to another point...what happens then? is there a Russian battle of Britian? I can only assume the Russians were even more inept at Naval invasions than the Germans were.
    Also, why would the British be more apt to settle with the Russians rather than the Germans had they taken western europe? They would have tried to hold out...would the US get involved?
    Since All this would not have happened till the mid 40's then how strong would the Russians and allies have been?
    Would the Allies have developed a nuclear bomb?
    I think you MAY have a case in the Soviets invading Germany if Germany had not attacked and was the weaker non Hitler nation people talk about. But then again would Germany have been Facist if there was no Hitler? Heck who knows they may have even become Communist and they could have been the best of friends! :eek:
    Or heck democratic for that matter.
    But to assume Russia would have gone to the Channel seems a bit over the top especially since that would lead to war with Englad and the Soviets would have no capabilities for that! Also since the Russian Navy was nothing compared to the British or the kind of Submarine fleet the Germans had.
    Oh and Andy...that Mr. P and Mr. S that was funny...but hey, it made sense.
     
  13. CrazyD

    CrazyD Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,370
    Likes Received:
    30
    Cute analogy Andy. Problem is, we DO have hindsight. And your analogy neglects to mention that soon after Mr. S gets your house and that of Mr. P, Mr. S also goes on to take over Mr. F's living room, he kicks Mr U. out of the bathroom, and Mr. S. generally gives everyone else in the neighborhood a rough time.

    Even by late 1944, when the Eclipse plan for germany's post-war occupation was forming, Stalin was demanding more and more territory. So you're idea is that he just came up with this out of the blue? All of a sudden, once the war nears it's end, Stalin decides that NOW he wants loads of new territory? OK then...
    Dasreich has a good point. We do not know what Stalin was thinking or planning. What we do know, is that germany seriously damaged russia during ww2. We also know that AFTER ww2, Stalin expanded both the military power and the territory of russia. The thoery here is simply to remove from that equation the german and russian conflict. Without that conflict, we have no way of knowing what Stalin would have attempted. But had he tried to attack and conquer parts of Europe, it obviously would have been easier without the struggle against germany.

    Like Friedrich says, this is speculation. The definition of speculation refers to "a guess, or conjecture". What kind of proof would you like for that?
     
  14. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    48
    I am 200% agreed with every word in Crazy's post this time!!! ;)
     
  15. dasreich

    dasreich Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Messages:
    580
    Likes Received:
    1
    Bravo, Crazy.

    When discussing alternate history, hard data ends where the fiction begins. The best we can do speculate on the actions of individuals and societies based on their real life actions.
     
  16. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    22,347
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    Here´s something interesting data on situation in eastern Europe and what happened in the negotiations between Hitler and Molotov-Stalin in 1940.

    I had read in the Stalin sites that Germany had offered a place in the axis pact for Russia, but that Russia could not agree to the area requirements it was allowed to have. Which yet means that Russia was not to be left out of Hitler´s allies at the time!! If Russia had agreed to the pact could Germany have attacked them in 1941? Russia as being equal to Italy and Japan?

    After the failed discussions with Molotov Hitler gave orders to prepare for Barbarossa. I read that there were plans even earlier but the I suppose this one made wheels rolling.

    "Hitler turned his attention back to Russia. His problems with Josef Stalin had been developing since the early summer of 1940. Although Hitler was still playing the role of "ally" to Russia, Stalin was beginning to grate on Hitler's nerves. After overrunning Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, Stalin began to move into Rumania in the summer of 1940 and Hitler saw this as a threat. Rumania was very important to Hitler because of it's oil-rich region of Ploesti and he had been courting the Rumanians for some time. In 1939, Rumania consented to export most of it's oil to Germany. In the summer of 1940, Stalin demanded the Rumanian territories of Bessarabia and Bucovina. According to a secret protocol of the 1939 non-aggression pact between Germany and Russia, Hitler acknowledged Stalin's claim to Bessarabia, but not Bucovina. The Rumanians sent a plea to Hitler to aid them against Russia's demands. Hitler was stuck; should he step up to Stalin and tell him to leave Rumania alone? If he did so, it would pose a grave threat to his planned invasion of Russia - the invasion was meant to be a surprise and if Hitler started trouble with Stalin now, the Soviet dictator would go on the defensive and that is what Hitler had been trying to avoid all along. Furthermore, Hitler worried that if Stalin did not get the provinces that he was demanding, he would attack all of Rumania and Hitler would be forced to fight against Russia in order to protect the Ploesti oil fields. Now was not the time to go to war with Russia, the Germans were not yet prepared; the invasion would come when Hitler was good and ready. Hitler made a decision that he did not want to make: he rejected Rumania's plea; for now, starting trouble with Stalin was just too risky. Rumania ceded Bessarabia and Bucovina to Russia. Soon afterwards, Hungary and Bulgaria decided to enter the game and they also demanded territories from Rumania. Bulgaria demanded the region of Dobruja and Hungary demanded Transylvania. Hitler became increasingly worried with the troubles in Rumania and he decided to intervene. The matter with Bulgaria was settled quickly and Rumania ceded a small part of Dobruja, but the Rumanians were not going to give up Transylvania to the Hungarians. Representatives of Rumania and Hungary were invited to Vienna to sign an agreement drawn up by German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop. The settlement gave Hungary the northern third portion of Transylvania. The stunned Rumanian Foreign Minister fainted when he saw a map showing the extent of the area that had been taken away from Rumania. Hitler attempted to soothe the Rumanians by guaranteeing the protection of their remaining borders; if anyone attacked Rumania from this point on, Germany and Italy would come to Rumania's defense. When Stalin found out about the guarantee, he was certainly not happy about it for he knew exactly what it meant, Hitler's message was loud and clear - 'stay out of Rumania'. Stalin had ambitions in the Balkans and Hitler's guarantee rubbed him the wrong way. The German/Russian "friendship" was beginning to come apart. Since the Russians were not consulted about the Vienna settlement, Russian Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov accused Germany of violating an article of their 1939 pact which required consultation. Ribbentrop responded by accusing Russia of violating the 1939 pact by swallowing up Bessarabia and Bucovina without consulting Germany. Things became even worse in early September when King Carol of Rumania was replaced by his nineteen-year-old son Michael. Michael conveyed his powers to General Ion Antonescu, an ardent Hitler supporter. Antonescu asked Hitler to send German troops to Rumania for protection against the Russians. On September 20th, Hitler sent anti-aircraft units, fighter squadrons, the 13th Panzer Division and a regiment of the 2nd Panzer Division. Hitler further stepped on Stalin's toes by making an agreement with Russia's enemy, Finland. Hitler wanted German troops to have free passage through Finland on their way to Norway. To add fuel to the fire, on September 27th, representatives of Italy, Japan, and Germany met in Berlin and signed an alliance - the Tripartite Pact. Stalin was wary of the pact despite the fact that Ribbentrop assured him that the alliance was not meant to threaten Russia. In order to ease tensions, Ribbentrop invited Molotov to Berlin for talks.

    Molotov arrived in Berlin on November 12th. The trip was a disaster from start to finish. Molotov did not hide the fact that he was not impressed with Ribbentrop or even Hitler. He was forward, blunt, and impenetrable. For his first session, he met with Ribbentrop. Ribbentrop informed his guest that England was already beaten, it was only a matter of time before they completely collapse. Since the Germans did not want the Russians involved in central Europe and the Balkans, Ribbentrop attempted to divert Russia's interests by insisting that the Russians turn their attention toward southern Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the Arabian Sea. Molotov did not offer much of a reaction to Ribbentrop's proposition, he was waiting for his confrontation with Hitler, which took place later that afternoon. The meeting was not what Hitler had expected, Molotov was not cowed by the Nazi dictator and he did not accept Hitler's vague statements. He pounded Hitler with one detailed question after another regarding his plans in Rumania, the exact boundaries of the Asian territories that Germany was offering to Russia, the New Order in Europe and how would it affect Russia, etc. Interpreter Paul Schmidt expected Hitler to fly into a rage, but he kept himself under control. At first, he gave vague responses to Molotov's questions and then he postponed the meeting because of the possibility of British air raids. The meeting resumed the next day and this time, the discussions became very intense. Neither side was ready to back down on the issues of Finland and Rumania. Molotov complained about the presence of German troops in Finland and suggested that Russia may attack Finland. According to Paul Schmidt, Hitler lost his temper and insisted that a Russian attack on Finland was intolerable and he stated that if such a move were to take place, it would have "far-reaching repercussions." Ribbentrop broke in several times during the discussions to cool things down. On the issue of Rumania, Molotov insisted that Hitler take back his guarantee, but Hitler flatly refused. Molotov inquired whether the guarantee applied Russia and Hitler retorted, "It applies to anyone who attacks Rumania." The talks ended without any progress. Before Molotov departed for Russia, Ribbentrop gave him a draft of an agreement between Germany, Italy, Japan, and Russia. The agreement included a protocol which allotted Russia's territorial aspirations in the area of the Indian Ocean. Molotov took the draft with him back to Russia and a few weeks later he replied. He asserted that Russia would join the Axis pact only under certain conditions, among them: Germany should withdraw their troops from Finland, Russia would install military bases in Bulgaria, and Russia would claim the territory south of Batum and Baku in the area of the Persian Gulf. This was too much for Hitler, and he did not respond. He called his generals and informed them that "Russia must be brought to her knees as soon as possible." The code name for the invasion of Russia originally was Otto, and in December 1940, Hitler officially changed the name to Operation Barbarossa, after the twelfth-century Emperor Frederick I who was nicknamed "Red Beard" or "Barbarossa".

    From the site

    http://www.megspace.com/education/trp/hitlerstroubles.html

    [​IMG]
     
  17. AndyW

    AndyW Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2000
    Messages:
    815
    Likes Received:
    1
    Oh, in this case Mr. S would be a very stupid and irrational guy! His, Mr.P's and my house are badly demaged and needs to refurbiushed a.s.a.p. The other neighbors in the street are very close friends of Mr. A, who owns an entire block in a different street. Additionnaly, cousins of Mr. A were already living for rent in Mr. F's, Mr. U's houses down the street and in the basement of my house. MAYBE he only needs my and Mr.P's house to be damned sure that the other neighbors down the street or Mr. A will not visit him against his own will, as I did earlier (now my analogy fades away a bit, let's say, you can reach Mr.S' house only by passing through mine and Mr.P's garden and vice versa) and to take furnishure from Mr.P's and my house to refurbish his own house.

    My point is that Stalin's territorial claims in 1930 until 1941 were a "lesson learned" from the various attempts of attacking the Soviet Union (as already mentioned: Western Powers, Poland, Japan). The solution was a mix of
    a) builing a Soviet "Cordon sanitaire" (Finnland, Baltic States, Poland, Czech Rep. Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey) with secured access to the Mediterranian and Baltic Seas;
    b) keeping the imperialism of the "capitalist" (including Nazi Germany as being "Capitalistic" in a broader sense) powers busy with themselfs and way from the Soviet Union;
    c) gaining military strength to make any attempt of invasion a unpredictable risk to other outside countries.

    Once the goal to "secure" the USSR from any outside influence (after his terror in the 1930-ies secured his dictatory "internally") had been fullfilled, the USSR would have - like any other Great Power before and after him - used her strength and played world politics just as she did during the Cold war.

    The events of 1941, when his country was invaded once again and the enemy was even able to get close to Mosvow and threatened to destroy the USSR in her entity, must have multiplied this desire for security and was - to Stalin - a proof that he needs that "Cordon Sanitaire" to protect the USSR.

    Basically, he did exactely what the U.S.A. did after 1945: building up security for her homeland. Pearl Harbor and the German declaration of war showed that the U.S. has to be present on the other sides of the oceans and that it's not save enough to hide behind the oceans.

    Western, capitalist powers sharing frontiers to the USSR was - to Stalin - a guarantee that he sooner or later will become again a victim of invasion. And it was Soviet's top policy until the end of her existance that something like "Barbarossa" could never happen again.

    BTW, the fact that I'm playing "Team Red" here in this discussion doesn't make me neccessarily a Commie ;)

    Cheers,

    [ 12 September 2002, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: AndyW ]
     
  18. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    22,347
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    Mighty interesting stuff. The messages between Molotov and German foreign policy ministry, as well as discussions during autumn to make the three party pact to four party pact, with Russia as the fourth party! Seems like Hitler did not want Barbarossa at the time at least!

    " After some words of welcome, the Führer stated that the idea that was uppermost in his mind in the conversations now taking place was this: In the life of peoples it was indeed difficult to lay down a course for development over a long period in the future and the outbreak of conflicts was often strongly influenced by personal factors; he believed, nevertheless, that an attempt had to be made to fix the development of nations, even for a long period of time, in so far as that was possible, so that friction would be avoided and the elements of conflict precluded as far as humanly possible. This was particularly in order when two nations such as the German and Russian nations had at their helm men who possessed sufficient authority to commit their countries to a development in a definite direction. In the case of Russia and Germany, moreover, two very great nations were involved which need not by nature have any conflict of interests, if each nation understood that the other required certain vital necessities without the guarantee of which its existence was impossible. Besides this, both countries had systems of government which did not wage war for the sake of war, but which needed peace more than war in order to carry out their domestic tasks. With due regard for vital needs, particularly in the economic field, it should really be possible to achieve a settlement between them, which would lead to peaceful collaboration between the two countries beyond the life span of the present leaders.

    After Molotov had expressed his entire agreement with these arguments, the Führer continued that it was obviously a difficult task to chart developments between peoples and countries over a long period. He believed, however, that it would be possible to elaborate clearly and precisely certain general points of views quite independently of personal motives and to orient the political and economic interests of peoples in such a manner as to give some guarantee that conflicts would be avoided even for rather long periods. "

    "The Führer declared further that probably neither of the two peoples had realized its wishes 100 percent. In political life, however, even a 20-25 percent realization of demands was would a good deal. He believed that not every wish would be fulfilled in the future either, but that the two greatest peoples of Europe, if they went along together, would, in any case gain more than if they worked against each other. If they stood together, some advantage would always accrue to both countries. If they worked against each other, however, third countries would be the sole gainers."

    "He (the Führer) now had pondered the question how, beyond all petty momentary considerations, further to clarify in bold outline the collaboration between Germany and Russia and what direction future German-Russian developments should take. In this matter the following viewpoints were of importance for Germany:

    1. Need for Lebensraum [Raumnot]. During the war Germany had acquired such large areas that she would require one hundred years to utilize them fully.

    2. Some colonial expansion in Central Africa was necessary.

    3. Germany needed certain raw materials, the supply of which she would have to safeguard under all circumstances. And

    4. She could not permit the establishment by hostile powers of air or naval bases in certain areas."

    " The Führer replied that the Tripartite Pact was intended to regulate conditions in Europe as to the natural interests of the European countries and, consequently, Germany was now approaching the Soviet Union in order that she might express herself regarding the areas of interest to her. In no case was a settlement to be made without Soviet Russian cooperation. This applied not only to Europe, but also to Asia, where Russia herself was to cooperate in the definition of the Greater East Asian Sphere and where she was to designate her claims there. Germany's task in this case was that of a mediator. Russia by no means was to be confronted with a fait accompli."

    "BERLIN, November 15, 1940.

    The conversations between the German and the Soviet-Russian Governments on the occasion of the presence of Molotov in Berlin were conducted on the basis of the treaties concluded last year and resulted in complete agreement regarding the firm determination of both countries to continue in the future the policy inaugurated by these treaties. Beyond that, they served the purpose of coordinating the policy of the Soviet Union with the policy of the Tripartite Pact. As already expressed in the final communiqué regarding the visit of Molotov, this exchange of views took place in an atmosphere of mutual confidence and resulted in agreement by both sides on all important questions of interest to Germany and the Soviet Union"

    And finally this on this site!!:

    The Soviet Government has studied the contents of the statements of the Reich Foreign Minister in the concluding conversation on November 13 and takes the following stand:

    "The Soviet Government is prepared to accept the draft of the Four Power Pact which the Reich Foreign Minister outlined in the conversation of November 13, regarding political collaboration and reciprocal economic [support [4]] subject to the following conditions ( see the site for these )

    http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/nsr/nsr-06.html#17

    I do think the four power pact was going rather well...so far. Just signatures missing, and Hitler himself trying to convince Molotov that Germany wants Russia on their side... :eek: :eek:
     
  19. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    22,347
    Likes Received:
    1,061
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    Something happened on the way to...

    Anyway, from this site the next thing is Hitler´s direktive to attack Russia! Was Hitler driven crazy by Stalin´s requirements and caused the war? The next time Molotov was asking on the contract is here:

    "No. 122 of January 17

    For the Reich Foreign Minister.

    1. Molotov asked me to call on him this afternoon and stated the following:

    Since the most important economic questions in the relations between Germany and the Soviet Union had been settled by the recently concluded treaties, it would now be in order to turn to purely political issues again. The Soviet Government was surprised that it had not yet received from Germany any answer to its statement of position of November 25 (cf. telegraphic report No. 2562 [2362] of November 25) concerning the issues raised during the Berlin discussions, and he would appreciate it if I would bring that fact to the attention of the Government of the German Reich with the remark that the Soviet Government was counting on an early German reply"

    http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/nsr/nsr-07.html#9

    Hmmm. How close and yet so far..

    ;) :D
     
  20. CrazyD

    CrazyD Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,370
    Likes Received:
    30
    So you're reading in Stalin's intent and mindframe? OK, I just don't see that as a strong argument. Clearly, much of what you say makes sense- Stalin would certainly want to firtify his own country, and his rule thereof. But to say that those were his only intentions- I need far more evidence to make that kind of jump. Especially when one considers the hindsight we DO have... If Stalin's only intent was self-preservation, why the territory grabs? Why did Stalin insist on so much control over post war germany?
    Exactly! And when Stalin did do this, we see intense expansion. And this is the whole point here- For Stalin to "secure" himself and his country, he had to defend it against the attacking germans, correct? And this used men, material, and diplomacy, right? If Stalin had NOT been required to expend all of this fighting the germans, he could have turned it towards Europe once he finished "securing" his own country.

    Then Mr. T rolls in. "I pity the fool!"...

    (anyone gonna get that one?)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page