What if Nazi Germany defeated the Soviet Union?

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

how do you see it being played out?

[Kamos]

Well, first of all, they'd have won the war. Secondly, the SU would probably have stopped existing (thanks to Nazi Germany too). Thirdly, it is unlikely that Germany would have been able to invade the USA... So yeah, most likely Germany would have found a way to make an advantageous peace (probably involving both land gains and replaced governments) and a cold war would have ensued with fascists replacing communists and the West being short of several European countries.

That's the way I see it, anyway.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

The what if's of the great patriotic war, what if Japan had invaded the cccp instead of the us, the nazis would have had nukes and a way to deliver them by 1946. The Germans would have nuked the us, had they invaded England. There are a lot more things thatwould have happend

[Susurrus]

The break-up would have been much sooner than that of the Soviet Union, due to the highly unstable nature of the Nazi proxy governments, not to mention the fact that they blatently say they want to annihilate everybody not aryan.

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

Well, first of all, they'd have won the war. Secondly, the SU would probably have stopped existing (thanks to Nazi Germany too). Thirdly, it is unlikely that Germany would have been able to invade the USA... So yeah, most likely Germany would have found a way to make an advantageous peace (probably involving both land gains and replaced governments) and a cold war would have ensued with fascists replacing communists and the West being short of several European countries.

That's the way I see it, anyway.


If Hitler defeated the SU, i dont think the allies would of invaded occupied europe, but Hitler wasn't the most logical of commanders, he probably would of severely oppressed the Soviets(who he considered inferior) even though many Soviet citizens saw the Nazis as liberators. If he got the population of the east behind him, i dont think the allys would of been able to defeat him

[Lenina Rosenweg]

If Nazi Germany had defeated the SU there certainly would have been other wars. According to "The Wages of Destruction" by Adam Tooze,an economic history of Nazi Germany, which I'm currently reading Hitler's real concern was a future struggle with the United States. He felt he needed to achieve hegemony in Europe and conquer the Soviet Union to secure Germany's position before the real struggle. This may sound absurd at first glance but Hitler was operating off a highly paranoid world view.

The most realist alternate history of a Nazi victory is "Fatherland" by Robert Harris.The author has the war with the SU continuing through the 1960s though,

[thesadmafioso]

Anyone else suspicious about this topic being in Opposing Ideologies as opposed to History and for it being centered around some fictitious scenario which seems to require an healthy bit of sympathy towards fascism and nazism to be considered plausible?

I can't help but get the impression that this may just be a troll of sorts.

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

nah dude, im anti fascist anti right wing. im from south africa, and im white, got no sympathy for right wing ideologies like nazism and apartheid

[thesadmafioso]

nah dude, im anti fascist anti right wing. im from south africa, and im white, got no sympathy for right wing ideologies like nazism and apartheid

Just the other day I talked to a supposed 'jew' who was in support of maintaining the 'purity' of race, your point?

Though on the off chance my assumptions are incorrect, this would be a topic more fitting in the History section of the board.

[Tommy4ever]

Likely a peace leaving the Fascists with all of Europe under their dominion.

ie a world I don't even want to imagine.

[Dr Mindbender]

how do you see it being played out?

I think if they'd won, WW3 would have happened almost straight after. If imperial Japan had a precedence to continue, it would only be a matter of time before the axis outgrew its usefulness.

[Kamos]

Anyone else suspicious about this topic being in Opposing Ideologies as opposed to History and for it being centered around some fictitious scenario which seems to require an healthy bit of sympathy towards fascism and nazism to be considered plausible?

I can't help but get the impression that this may just be a troll of sorts.

He's a new guy who posted a completely innocent thread. Calm the fuck down.

[jake williams]

nah dude, im anti fascist anti right wing. im from south africa, and im white, got no sympathy for right wing ideologies like nazism and apartheid
Then you're one of the only ones.


I can't help but get the impression that this may just be a troll of sorts.
It's still interesting as a historical counterfactual.

Anyway, the Nazis were quite close to militarily defeating the SU in the classical sense, but the "war" wouldn't have ended there. The idea that Nazi officials could effectively control all of the territory from the English Channel to the Bering Strait is ludicrous.

It would've been a long civil war, maybe relatively quiet, maybe fairly intense, it's hard to say but the Nazi regime would not have lasted forever, and possibly not even that long.

[Rss]

Trots would've thrown a party.

Perhaps tens of millions of deaths, domination of Europe by Germany and it's fascist allies, ethnic cleansings of unimaginable scale, guerilla warfare lasting decades and new Dark Age for worker's of the world.

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

[QUOTE=jammoe;2184457]Then you're one of the only ones.

Contrary to popular belief not all white south africans are nationalist right wing racists, during apartheid my parents fought for equality in this country, often participating in protests and riots, apartheid was oppressive to everyone who lived in this country, everything was seperated, there were parks for europeans only, beaches, toilets, even walking bridges were seperated, the national party government tried to isolate europeans society from the non white population

[Octavian]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/The_Man_in_the_High_Castle.jpg

In reality, unfortunately all jews would begone and negros would be almost exterminated or forced exclusively to the African continent. Europe would probably be too hard to control and result in mass uprisings creating fragmented states.

[Jose Gracchus]

There is virtually no way the Nazis could possibly have won the war in the East. It was one of the most extreme strategic miscalculations in history.

Even if the Nazis overrun Moscow and the UK sues for peace, the U.S. will probably field the B-36 and all-out destroy Nazi Germany with a strategic nuclear weapon attack. The Nazis bit off more than they could chew (which is what Wages of Destruction should really impress upon you).

[Viet Minh]

Its unlikely Germany could ever have defeated USSR, whilst fighting on all the other fronts at the same time. But if Germany had not broken their pact with the SU then WW2 could possibly have been won by the axis imo.

[Viet Minh]

Then you're one of the only ones.

Wow, way to slander an entire people! I see you're from Canada, I assume you're implicit in the Canadian Klan or whatever.. :rolleyes:

[Tablo]

Yeah, I think WWII would have certainly been an Axis victory if Germany hadn't invaded the SU. Now the SU may have eventually caused them issues, but invading the rest of Europe and having to fight with the US would have been a much easier task without the amount of fighting going on at the eastern front. The US still would have won in the Pacific though.

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

Wow, way to slander an entire people! I see you're from Canada, I assume you're implicit in the Canadian Klan or whatever.. :rolleyes:

people always think white south africans are racist. very shallow indeed

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

Yeah, I think WWII would have certainly been an Axis victory if Germany hadn't invaded the SU. Now the SU may have eventually caused them issues, but invading the rest of Europe and having to fight with the US would have been a much easier task without the amount of fighting going on at the eastern front.

yes i agree, the allies had it easy when they invaded occupied europe, hitlers army was already spread out too thin

[CommieTroll]

I don't think the Soviet citizens saw the Nazi's as liberators Iron Fist, after the Nazi's killing 20 million Soviets? Please

[CommunityBeliever]

First of all there is no way the Nazis wouldn't have invaded the Soviet Union, that was directly implied by their policy of Lebensraum, their anti-communism, and their anti-slav racism.

But lets say that the Nazis did a better job on the Eastern front for example by winning in the battle of Stalingrad. The red army would've kept fighting them all across Russia to the Bering straight. Stalin and other important individuals would've escaped to Mongolia or China, and eventually the Nazis would've been defeated anyways because they had so many enemies, remember that the U.N was basically formed out of all the countries that made up the allies up in WW2.

The U.S would've developed a nuclear weapon first and nuked Berlin too I think, which is something they were planning on doing anyways. The U.S couldn't peacefully coexist with a rival superpower like the Nazis.

[Tablo]

First of all there is no way the Nazis wouldn't have invaded the Soviet Union, that was directly implied by their policy of Lebensraum, their anti-communism, and their anti-slav racism.

But lets say that the Nazis did a better job on the Eastern front for example by winning in the battle of Stalingrad. The red army would've kept fighting them all across Russia to the Bering straight. Stalin and other important individuals would've escaped to Mongolia or China, and eventually the Nazis would've been defeated anyways because they had so many enemies, remember that the U.N was basically formed out of all the countries that made up the allies up in WW2.

The U.S would've developed a nuclear weapon first and nuked Berlin too I think, which is something they were planning on doing anyways. The U.S couldn't peacefully coexist with a rival superpower like the Nazis.
This is IF they didn't invade the SU. Obviously Soviet invasion was intended.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

"What if the Nazis won?"

Answer: A severely fucked up world, yet one that wouldn't look much different in the long run.

[CommunityBeliever]

One grim possibility is that there may have been a cold war between the U.S and the Nazis rather then between the U.S and the social-imperialists that took over the Soviet Union after comrade Stalin's death. But this is all just speculation.

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

I don't think the Soviet citizens saw the Nazi's as liberators Iron Fist, after the Nazi's killing 20 million Soviets? Please

ukrainian citizens saw the nazis as liberators, cos of the whole stalin trying to murder the entire population of ukraine by starvation thing in 1930s. but the nazis saw them as inferior and treated them badly

[Comrade Gwydion]

In my understanding Hitlers plans were to incorporate Western-Russia up until Moscow into the German Reich, while the East would have had to become a totalitarian puppet-state.

[Rss]

ukrainian citizens saw the nazis as liberators

Leftover garbage from kulak class, nationalists and local fascists treated them as liberators.


cos of the whole stalin trying to murder the entire population of ukraine by starvation thing in 1930s. but the nazis saw them as inferior and treated them badly

Oh Stalin, you cartoonishly evil supervillain. :rolleyes:

No. Famine in 30s happened all over USSR. There was no ukrainian holocaust.

[Susurrus]

In my understanding Hitlers plans were to incorporate Western-Russia up until Moscow into the German Reich, while the East would have had to become a totalitarian puppet-state.

Japan would probably want a few pieces, too.

[jake williams]

Contrary to popular belief not all white south africans are nationalist right wing racists, during apartheid my parents fought for equality in this country, often participating in protests and riots, apartheid was oppressive to everyone who lived in this country, everything was seperated, there were parks for europeans only, beaches, toilets, even walking bridges were seperated, the national party government tried to isolate europeans society from the non white population
I don't deny that there are anti-racist whites in South Africa, just that there are exceptionally few of them. Your parents would know better than I that they were virtually alone in being white people in South Africa actively fighting apartheid and taking risks doing it. There are plenty of liberals around now who claim to have been against apartheid, but there's no evidence for it, and if you listen to them speak about it for more than thirty seconds it's clear they're still vulgar, horrible racists, the DA being a perfect example. But it this is all a digression. I do apologize to you and your family, who I'm sure are quite sincere, and I never meant to suggest anything otherwise.

It's also true that Canadians are in general exceptional racists in regards to the country's internal colonialism, and you can find regular comment in local newspapers that would make the senior staff of the National Party or Likud blush.

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

Leftover garbage from kulak class, nationalists and local fascists treated them as liberators.



Oh Stalin, you cartoonishly evil supervillain. :rolleyes:

No. Famine in 30s happened all over USSR. There was no ukrainian holocaust.

oh ok, so stalin never made soviet peasants give up their grain, which the soviets exported 1.7 milllion tons to all corners of the world, while their citizens starved?

[Viet Minh]

Who would have guessed this would turn into a tendency war? :laugh:
Anyone wanna debate the finer points of the Vietnam-Cambodia war for a change of pace? :)

[IronFist_of_proletarians]

so the soviets didnt pass a law in august 1932 that declares any possession of food is state property, and that possesion of food was a crime punished by execution

[LegendZ]

Who would have guessed this would turn into a tendency war? :laugh:
Anyone wanna debate the finer points of the Vietnam-Cambodia war for a change of pace? :)Well when your OP is Godwin's law you should know it will end up turning into a shitfest.

[beeman]

The break-up would have been much sooner than that of the Soviet Union, due to the highly unstable nature of the Nazi proxy governments, not to mention the fact that they blatently say they want to annihilate everybody not aryan.

Source please

[Susurrus]

Source please

Pardon me, I should have said "annihilate everyone Jewish and communist" and added "dominate everyone else not aryan"

we were to divide mankind into three groups, the founders of culture, the bearers of culture, the destroyers of culture, only the Aryan could be considered as the representative of the first group. From him originate the foundations and walls of all human creation, and only the outward form and colour are determined by the changing traits of character of the various peoples. ... In a few decades, for example, the entire east of Asia will possess a culture whose ultimate foundation will be Hellenic spirit and Germanic technology, just as much as in Europe. Only the outward form-in part at least-will bear the features of Asiatic character. -Hitler

[Sir Comradical]

There is virtually no way the Nazis could possibly have won the war in the East. It was one of the most extreme strategic miscalculations in history.

Even if the Nazis overrun Moscow and the UK sues for peace, the U.S. will probably field the B-36 and all-out destroy Nazi Germany with a strategic nuclear weapon attack. The Nazis bit off more than they could chew (which is what Wages of Destruction should really impress upon you).

The United States would make peace with Nazi Germany and American capitalists would continue investing there. In other words, it would be business as usual.

US Senator Harry Truman: "If we see that Germany is winning, we should help the Russians, and if Russia is winning, we should help Germany and that way we let them kill as many as possible" (New York Times, 24 June 1941).

[beeman]

Pardon me, I should have said "annihilate everyone Jewish and communist" and added "dominate everyone else not aryan"

we were to divide mankind into three groups, the founders of culture, the bearers of culture, the destroyers of culture, only the Aryan could be considered as the representative of the first group. From him originate the foundations and walls of all human creation, and only the outward form and colour are determined by the changing traits of character of the various peoples. ... In a few decades, for example, the entire east of Asia will possess a culture whose ultimate foundation will be Hellenic spirit and Germanic technology, just as much as in Europe. Only the outward form-in part at least-will bear the features of Asiatic character. -Hitler


Your reading comprehension is most definitely sub-par if you misconstrue this for destroying the Oriental peoples. I will use lay-mans terms for you. The quote says that he believes "Aryans" are the creators of modern civilization. In a few decades he believed that Asia would have predominately German technology and basically adopt European culture. It also says "Only the outward form-in part at least-will bear the features of Asiatic character"
That means as I stated previously, that Asians were not wiped out, and he actually believed that Asians and Europeans would procreate.

[Jose Gracchus]

Harry Truman does not represent U.S. war and strategic planning up to and including 1941; he was a political pick for VP by Roosevelt and was kept largely out of the loop. Multiple strategic studies considered that the U.S. would at the very least dominate all of the world aside from a central European center maybe controlled by Germany (Grand Area planning; see: The Imperial Brain Trust; great book). But war planning at the time was even more radical: the U.S. contemplated the deployment over of a hundred and twenty divisions in the European theater, and air war plans called for the development of a strategic bomber for strategic bombing missions capable of taking off and flying across the Atlantic to targets. The B-36 would have been tasked with the nuclear destruction of Germany in the mid-late 1940s. The U.S. was simply not prepared to allow such a massive disruption to the balance of power, and a German superpower which successfully imposed itself upon, and consolidated much of Eurasia was considered unacceptable.

[Susurrus]

Your reading comprehension is most definitely sub-par if you misconstrue this for destroying the Oriental peoples. I will use lay-mans terms for you. The quote says that he believes "Aryans" are the creators of modern civilization. In a few decades he believed that Asia would have predominately German technology and basically adopt European culture. It also says "Only the outward form-in part at least-will bear the features of Asiatic character"
That means as I stated previously, that Asians were not wiped out, and he actually believed that Asians and Europeans would procreate.

No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since, if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow. Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrifying clarity that in every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people. Hitler.

[#FF0000]

The Nazis wouldn't have won because Hitler was a big dumb baby who was more interested in stupid propaganda victories (e.g. stalingrad) than going after targets that were, you know, important (e.g. the Urals and the Oil Fields

[Susurrus]

The Nazis wouldn't have won because Hitler was a big dumb baby who was more interested in stupid propaganda victories (e.g. stalingrad) than going after targets that were, you know, important (e.g. the Urals and the Oil Fields

Suppose Hitler were assassinated and someone more strategically competent took his place?

[#FF0000]

Suppose Hitler were assassinated and someone more strategically competent took his place?

Who knows, then. I don't know if that would've happened though, since strongman dictatorships like that are usually absurdly unstable with all sorts of cloak and dagger shit going on behind the scenes.

[A Marxist Historian]

Yeah, I think WWII would have certainly been an Axis victory if Germany hadn't invaded the SU. Now the SU may have eventually caused them issues, but invading the rest of Europe and having to fight with the US would have been a much easier task without the amount of fighting going on at the eastern front. The US still would have won in the Pacific though.

If Germany had conquered the Soviet Union, England would have had to surrender pretty immediately or be crushed. With the entire German war machine directed to England, it wouldn't have taken long if England resisted.

However, the USA would still have won in the Pacific, and Hitler could not possibly have launched a cross-Atlantic invasion.

The US would still have gotten nuclear weapons first. So either WWII would have gone nuclear immediately, and Europe would be turned into an irradiated wasteland, or there would have been a period of peace with both sides developing nuclear weapons up to and including the H-bomb, and the inevitable WWIII would have turned the entire world into an irradiated wasteland.

Once Hitler got the bomb, human civilization would be doomed.

Either way, if the Soviet Union had not beaten Hitler, by now much of the world would be a post-Apocalypse movie.

Even in the more "favorable" variant, with the US nuking Germany with A-bombs dropped by long range bombers based on aircraft carriers, Hitler certainly wouldn't have surrendered merely because millions of Germans were dying. He would have fought on till Europe was irradiated and uninhabitable.

-M.H.-

[Imposter Marxist]

If Hitler defeated the SU, i dont think the allies would of invaded occupied europe, but Hitler wasn't the most logical of commanders, he probably would of severely oppressed the Soviets(who he considered inferior) even though many Soviet citizens saw the Nazis as liberators. If he got the population of the east behind him, i dont think the allys would of been able to defeat him (My emphasis)

Excuse me?

[CommieTroll]

ukrainian citizens saw the nazis as liberators, cos of the whole stalin trying to murder the entire population of ukraine by starvation thing in 1930s. but the nazis saw them as inferior and treated them badly

I'd say its difficult to find a family in Russia and most former Soviet Republics that haven't lost at least one relative to Fascism in that conflict. What is your proof that the Ukranian people welcomed the Nazi's into their neck of the CCCP?
Do you genuinely have proof of this or are you just mindlessly posting anti-Stalinist crap that your history teacher has spoon fed you? And what age are you? I'm guessing you are very young from your grammar

[Susurrus]

I wouldn't say the russians/Ukranians that supported the nazis saw them as liberators, but as a lesser evil or a means to escape.

[beeman]

No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since, if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, might be ruined with one blow. Historical experience offers countless proofs of this. It shows with terrifying clarity that in every mingling of Aryan blood with that of lower peoples the result was the end of the cultured people. Hitler.



You're intellectually outgunned here. Ill have to break this one down as for you as well. It is a Quote against miscegenation. He is referring to the Aryan people as the "higher race" and other races as the "lower races" and trying to persuade "Aryan peoples" to not procreate with other ethnic groups. No where in this quote either does it say "All non Aryans will be wiped off the face of the Earth!"

[Susurrus]

You're intellectually outgunned here. Ill have to break this one down as for you as well. It is a Quote against miscegenation. He is referring to the Aryan people as the "higher race" and other races as the "lower races" and trying to persuade "Aryan peoples" to not procreate with other ethnic groups. No where in this quote either does it say "All non Aryans will be wiped off the face of the Earth!"

Um, yes.:confused: Thank you for proving my point.

[beeman]

Um, yes.:confused: Thank you for proving my point.

Wow. Debating you is akin to debating a teenager. I disproved your point. You said "they were going to annihilate all non aryans" Where in either quote you provided does it say that? But, alas, no matter how it is explained to you, in your opinion you are right, and will always have this final work spoken. Teenager is as Teenager does.

[Susurrus]

Pardon me, I should have said "annihilate everyone Jewish and communist" and added "dominate everyone else not aryan"


I believed I covered this already. My last quote was intended to disprove your comment that " he actually believed that Asians and Europeans would procreate."

[beeman]

I believed I covered this already. My last quote was intended to disprove your comment that " he actually believed that Asians and Europeans would procreate."


He was obviously not in favor of miscegenation, but what is your take on "Only the outward form-in part at least-will bear the features of Asiatic character"


He was obviously referring to some race partaking in miscegenation with
Asians then, because he thought that Asians would only appear "part Asian".

[Susurrus]

He was obviously not in favor of miscegenation, but what is your take on "Only the outward form-in part at least-will bear the features of Asiatic character"


He was obviously referring to some race partaking in miscegenation with
Asians then, because he thought that Asians would only appear "part Asian".

He meant the Asian culture and intellect, despite appearing Asian, was in fact due to Aryan influence.

[Rusty Shackleford]

If Hitler defeated the SU, i dont think the allies would of invaded occupied europe, but Hitler wasn't the most logical of commanders, he probably would of severely oppressed the Soviets(who he considered inferior) even though many Soviet citizens saw the Nazis as liberators. If he got the population of the east behind him, i dont think the allys would of been able to defeat him
WHAT

bullshit.

if you are talking about a few thousand "Russian Liberation Army" members and some Ukranian fascists then you are obviously wrong.

IIRC RLA soldiers were basically pressed into service from german held POW camps.


also, partisans. fuck TON of partisans could make a statement against that.

[Apoi_Viitor]

And what age are you? I'm guessing you are very young from your grammar

:thumbdown:

Besides, aren't there rules against ageism?

[Jose Gracchus]

Even in the more "favorable" variant, with the US nuking Germany with A-bombs dropped by long range bombers based on aircraft carriers, Hitler certainly wouldn't have surrendered merely because millions of Germans were dying. He would have fought on till Europe was irradiated and uninhabitable.

-M.H.-

Doubtful. A strategic strike on Germany proper would eliminate probably 80+% of the population, but destroy virtually of Germany's industrial capacity, quite easily. The German Reich would be unable to maintain anything like a modern war effort. She would have been crushed, but much of Europe would be in terrible shape, based on fallout patterns.

[RGacky3]

besides, aren't there rules against ageism?

ageism is not a thing.

[Blackscare]

He was obviously not in favor of miscegenation, but what is your take on "Only the outward form-in part at least-will bear the features of Asiatic character"


He was obviously referring to some race partaking in miscegenation with
Asians then, because he thought that Asians would only appear "part Asian".

God, your posts in this thread are a hilarious mixture of arrogance and total confusion. You don't even know what you're arguing against.

[ComradeMan]

This is obviously ahistorical and counter-factual as all "what if" arguments.

Let's hypothesise- the Battle of Moscow concludes with a Nazi victory in January 1942.

*Battle of Britain already a British victory
*Pearl Harbor already attacked thus US in the war.
*N.Africa campaign already underway (started 10th June 1940).

Overall result: I think we could have seen a parallel to the Cold War in which a US-Western Europe (liberated) would have had a long "Cold War" with an Eastern Axis.

Analysis: Had the Nazis defeated the Soviets at Moscow, and let's argue that as the "victory", it would have still left them with an enormous, seriously vast territory all the way to Vladivostok to control whilst still battling on the Western Front where they had lost/would lose two key battles, the Battle of Britain and the Battle of El Alamein and furthermore be engaged with a US, already involved in the war, that needed the war to pull itself out of economic problems.

I think the Battle of El Alamein would have still been fought and lost largely due to the fact that the impetus to gain access to oil and petroleum reserves would have been even less given a victory in the "East". However I am not sure if the Invasion of Sicily and defeat of Mussolini's Italy would have played out as it did.

Within the "conquered" Soviet territory there would have probably formed some massive resistance movement and trying to hold on to that territory and "govern" it would probably have proven more difficult than trying to conquer it. This would in turn have overstretched their resources in the East and weakened them in the West. On the other hand the Nazis would have also gained access to what they wanted- the oil and natural resources of the Soviet Union that as a result would have prolongued their war survival after the defeats in the Middle East and N.Africa.

Of course such a hypothetical argument would have to figure in things like whether Franco's Spain would have remained "outside" the war and how the war with Japan would have played out.

I could see the Allied invasion and Liberation of France, Belgium and the Netherlands and then some kind of awkward armistice in which a different kind of Cold War would develop.

The immediate results would have been horrible and I think the Holocaust would have been even worse (if you can imagine that) in terms of the numbers of people the Nazis would have sought to dispose of.

[Nox]

As soon as the Nazis launched Operation Barbarossa, that was it. They were doomed to failure, some say that even when Hitler had virtually the whole of Europe, he couldn't even produce half as many tanks as Stalin could.

As soon as the Nazis invaded the USSR, they were doomed to get fucked the shit out of.

To put it simply: It was a dumbass choice to make.


But, in the impossible scenario that the Nazis DID win the war, I imagine there would have been another type of 'cold war' with the Nazis trying to expand from the Europe that they conquered.

[A Marxist Historian]

Wow. Debating you is akin to debating a teenager. I disproved your point. You said "they were going to annihilate all non aryans" Where in either quote you provided does it say that? But, alas, no matter how it is explained to you, in your opinion you are right, and will always have this final work spoken. Teenager is as Teenager does.

Hilarious. Beeman has found a quote from Hitler in which Hitler does not call for killing all non Aryans. Mazel Tov!

As for annihilating all non Aryans, that would have been speculation for the distant future, not a usual Nazi preoccupation.

Nazi think tanks on the subject of the Soviet Union, as is well known and extremely well documented, were debating whether to annihilate *all* Russians, or just enslave them. (Discussed, for example, in one of the pieces in Studs Terkel's The Good War.) They argued back and forth about the Ukrainians, with some arguing that due to the Goths in Ukraine in the early Christian era, that there was a fair amount of Aryan blood in the population, so they might be salvageable. Not the majority opinion however.

In the Thousand Year Reich, annihilating all non-Aryans would have had to wait until technology advanced enough for widespread automation. And they still would have wanted to keep a lot on non-Aryan slaves around for personal servants, if nothing else.

-M.H.-

[Dr Mindbender]

As soon as the Nazis launched Operation Barbarossa, that was it. They were doomed to failure, some say that even when Hitler had virtually the whole of Europe, he couldn't even produce half as many tanks as Stalin could.

.
You do know that the Germans managed to get their tanks within marching distance of Moscow? Im sorry but they came perilously close to winning that one. In fact, if they had managed to get Japanese reinforcements from the eastern front (which they had called for) its likely the battle would have turned out differently.

The biggest mistake Hitler made was not attacking Russia but arrogantly underestimating the Russian ability to resist and the harsh effects of the Russian winter. He expected a quick victory, instead they were in for the long haul and ill prepared to move through the snow and ice. Lucky for us, he made these mistakes.

[A Marxist Historian]

This is obviously ahistorical and counter-factual as all "what if" arguments.

Well of course it is counterfactual. Ahistorical? Only if you see history as saying everything about the past and nothing about the present or future.

In any case, let us see how your counterfactuals stack up to mine.


Let's hypothesise- the Battle of Moscow concludes with a Nazi victory in January 1942.

*Battle of Britain already a British victory
*Pearl Harbor already attacked thus US in the war.
*N.Africa campaign already underway (started 10th June 1940).

Overall result: I think we could have seen a parallel to the Cold War in which a US-Western Europe (liberated) would have had a long "Cold War" with an Eastern Axis.

The Battle of Britain was an incredibly half-hearted effort on Hitler's part, for reasons that anyone who has taken even a casual look at Mein Kampf should instantly understand. Hitler hated France and the Soviet Union, and the United States too, but *liked* England and wanted England as an ally not an enemy.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Hitler could have crushed Churchill like a bug, if Churchill didn't do the obvious thing and surrender.

The North Africa campaign was always a minor sideshow of no great importance, except for Mussolini and Churchill of course. Its main overall military importance was that Allied victory lured the Allies into invading Italy, greatly to Hitler's advantage. But it also enabled the Allies to prevent Mussolini's collapse leading to a workers revolution, something very much on the cards at that point.

Allied victory in Europe by any methods short of nuclear after a Soviet collapse would have been inconceivable. If you have any doubt of this, just read Churchill's memoirs, he is from what I recall pretty upfront about that.


Analysis: Had the Nazis defeated the Soviets at Moscow, and let's argue that as the "victory", it would have still left them with an enormous, seriously vast territory all the way to Vladivostok to control whilst still battling on the Western Front where they had lost/would lose two key battles, the Battle of Britain and the Battle of El Alamein and furthermore be engaged with a US, already involved in the war, that needed the war to pull itself out of economic problems.

I think the Battle of El Alamein would have still been fought and lost largely due to the fact that the impetus to gain access to oil and petroleum reserves would have been even less given a victory in the "East". However I am not sure if the Invasion of Sicily and defeat of Mussolini's Italy would have played out as it did.

They could well have left Siberia to the Japanese if garrisoning it was too much trouble. Nine tenths of the Soviet war effort was on the Eastern Front. Freeing up the bulk of that huge force for elsewhere would have made the Battle of Britain easily reversible.

As for Alamein, one lousy extra Panzer division with Rommel, which the Eastern Front would barely have noticed, would have reversed that one.

You could have had continuing desultory minor squabbles in Africa, but effectively the fall of the Soviet Union would have ended World War II in Europe.[/QUOTE]


Within the "conquered" Soviet territory there would have probably formed some massive resistance movement and trying to hold on to that territory and "govern" it would probably have proven more difficult than trying to conquer it. This would in turn have overstretched their resources in the East and weakened them in the West. On the other hand the Nazis would have also gained access to what they wanted- the oil and natural resources of the Soviet Union that as a result would have prolongued their war survival after the defeats in the Middle East and N.Africa.

Of course such a hypothetical argument would have to figure in things like whether Franco's Spain would have remained "outside" the war and how the war with Japan would have played out.

I could see the Allied invasion and Liberation of France, Belgium and the Netherlands and then some kind of awkward armistice in which a different kind of Cold War would develop.

The immediate results would have been horrible and I think the Holocaust would have been even worse (if you can imagine that) in terms of the numbers of people the Nazis would have sought to dispose of.

I think the extreme popular demoralization after the collapse of the Soviet Union would have led to the collapse of all resistance movements to Hitler, whether in the ex-Soviet Union or anywhere else.

Spain was irrelevant. Japan however would almost certainly still have been defeated by the US, difference being that Hiroshima would not have been the first city nuked, they'd have nuked Germany first most likely.

After the fall of Britain, Roosevelt would probably have more or less given up on Europe and focused on the much easier task of defeating Japan.

The Holocaust would indeed have been vastly worse, and not restricted largely to Jews and Gypsies.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

You do know that the Germans managed to get their tanks within marching distance of Moscow? Im sorry but they came perilously close to winning that one. In fact, if they had managed to get Japanese reinforcements from the eastern front (which they had called for) its likely the battle would have turned out differently.

The biggest mistake Hitler made was not attacking Russia but arrogantly underestimating the Russian ability to resist and the harsh effects of the Russian winter. He expected a quick victory, instead they were in for the long haul and ill prepared to move through the snow and ice. Lucky for us, he made these mistakes.

The Japanese had been beaten badly at Khalkin Gol, and were not about to mess with the Soviet Union to no great purpose, as there wasn't any oil readily available in Siberia. After the US oil embargo the Japanese *had* to get oil, so they had to take Indonesia, so they had to take the Philippines, so they had to attack Pearl Harbor.

Taking on the Soviet Union at the same time would have been very stupid.

A quick Blitzkrieg in June 1941 was in fact the best and only way for Hitler to defeat the Soviet Union. Any long-duration war was doomed to failure.

The Soviet forces on the frontline were *superior* to the German forces in June 1941. The only reason for the quick victories was Stalin's incredible stupidity in not only signing a pact with Hitler, but actually thinking Hitler would honor it! Plus of course Stalin having murdered all the Soviet army's best generals and disorganized and demoralized it.

In fact Stalin wasn't quite that stupid, he assumed that Hitler would do the rational thing and not attack right away but prepare properly (including with cold weather gear for everyone among other things). Soviet planners assumed an attack in '42, and when Stalin was told that they were attacking in June '41, for several days he refused to even believe it.

Hitler understood Stalin pretty well, figured Stalin would think exactly that. And he was right. And, he came scarily close to winning.

-M.H.-

[Valdemar]

Well here it is my view, and tell me what you guys think:
If Nazi would defeat soviet union (maybe by attacking earlier so Mr. Winter would not get them) they would crate Lebensraum, "free" Ukraine people by making Ukraine, "freeing" Russians and making Russia (but a lot smaller then today) and some others ethnic groups living in SU, as products of dismantling SU and Communist Party. Afther that, UK and USA would not stand much change against Reich and would not probably come to Normandy or any kind of similar operation. UK would probably accept peace (surrender), because of being bombarded or nuked. Germany would be Superpower, there would be less European countries, I would live in Germany and probably speak German, would not know anything about Holocaust (not only me but majority of planet) and would be proud German. Asia would be under Japan Control and Japan would be one of Superpowers too, probably would get Siberia under its control too. My quick 5 min view about it.

[sattvika]

Depends on when Germany won.

If they won as part of their initial campaign in 1941-1942, a considerable amount of troops and gear would have been relocated westward and D-Day might have been impossible given such developments.

Similarly, a lot more resources would have been freed up for the invasion of England. Hitler would have even been able to sit back and consolidate his position for up to a year before invading the UK. I believe such an invasion would have been ultimately successful.

So, Germany would have had all of Europe. I'm not sure if the US could have defeated both Germany and Japan at the same time with the USSR and UK out of the question.

Ultimately, humanity would have been better off if Germany had defeated the USSR and won the war.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Ultimately, humanity would have been better off if Germany had defeated the USSR and won the war.



WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU JUST SAY?


seriously brah.


do humanity a favor and go fuck yourself.

[ComradeMan]

The Battle of Britain was an incredibly half-hearted effort on Hitler's part, for reasons that anyone who has taken even a casual look at Mein Kampf should instantly understand. Hitler hated France and the Soviet Union, and the United States too, but *liked* England and wanted England as an ally not an enemy.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Hitler could have crushed Churchill like a bug, if Churchill didn't do the obvious thing and surrender.

I disagree.

At the onset of the Battle of Britain, Britain and her Imperial allies along with the remnants of the Free Polish and Free French etc were alone in facing the full fury of the Luftwaffe. It was no half-hearted attempt. The island of Britain was basically a giant aircraft carrier off the northwestern coast of Europe. The failure to defeat Britain in the air battle was a major setback for the Nazis and a turning point in the second world war. Remember, the Nazis were not at war with "England" they were at war with Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc etc. The allied success maintained the Atlantic sea-routes under allied control.


The North Africa campaign was always a minor sideshow of no great importance, except for Mussolini and Churchill of course. Its main overall military importance was that Allied victory lured the Allies into invading Italy, greatly to Hitler's advantage. But it also enabled the Allies to prevent Mussolini's collapse leading to a workers revolution, something very much on the cards at that point.

The North Africa campaign was by no means a sideshow- the Middle Eastern/N.African oil fields were at stake as well as vital control of the Suez Canal-remembering that Britian controlled Gibraltar too, this meant that the Allies effectively controlled the Mediterranean. Mussolini's fleet were also half destroyed in the port of Taranto (Battle of Taranto Nov 1940) and finished in Greece at Cape Matapan (Mar 1941). The Allied control of the Mediterranean and N.Africa was a major blow to the Nazis and saw the turning point for the Italians- with the army humiliated and decimated and the navy destroyed- the "soft underbelly" of Europe was there for the pickings. This is where Spanish neutrality would also have come into play- Gibraltar? ;)


Allied victory in Europe by any methods short of nuclear after a Soviet collapse would have been inconceivable. If you have any doubt of this, just read Churchill's memoirs, he is from what I recall pretty upfront about that.

And Berlin had a bomb with its name on it. Berlin was, I believe, the initial target of a nuclear attack because the Allies were convinced that it would only have been a matter of time before the Nazis developed such a weapon under the Uranverein operations; late on in the war they had certainly developed a fearsome fighter jet the Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe and the bomber version, the Stormvogel- howeverGoering had not invested enough in the Heinkel project of 1939 and the eventual aircraft arrived too late in the end and was only operational after mid 1944.

At the Second Battle of El Alamein the Allies had 1029 tanks to the Axis 547 and overall the Allies outnumbered the Axis by approx. 80 000 men- I don't think one extra Panzer division would have made much difference seeing as the largest Panzer divisions (such as the IVth Panzer during the invasion of Poland counted 341 tanks). The Afrika Korps under Rommel represented some of Hitler's "finest" troops with the most prestigious new equipment.

As far as Japan was concerned- opinion in Japan was divided between two factions, the Northern Solution that wanted war against the Soviets and the Southern Solution that wanted war with the US and Britain- Soviet & US intelligence had already broken/revealed the Japanese main cypher, i.e. PURPLE and it became apparent that Japan did not intend to attack the Soviet Union. Had the Nazis won the battle of Moscow and held onto Moscow it would have meant defeat for Russia, but not necessarily the Soviet Union as a whole- it's a long way to Vladivostok.

[Il Medico]

Depends on when Germany won.

If they won as part of their initial campaign in 1941-1942, a considerable amount of troops and gear would have been relocated westward and D-Day might have been impossible given such developments.

Similarly, a lot more resources would have been freed up for the invasion of England. Hitler would have even been able to sit back and consolidate his position for up to a year before invading the UK. I believe such an invasion would have been ultimately successful.

So, Germany would have had all of Europe. I'm not sure if the US could have defeated both Germany and Japan at the same time with the USSR and UK out of the question.

Ultimately, humanity would have been better off if Germany had defeated the USSR and won the war.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think we have a fash.

[Sir Comradical]

Ultimately, humanity would have been better off if Germany had defeated the USSR and won the war.

Is your username sanskrit by any chance?

[hatzel]

I'd be interested in knowing why sattvika holds that position. I remember a thread not long ago about lolbertarians considering fascism as preferable to communism, but considering Germany's failure to defeat the USSR and win the war didn't lead to all humanity falling under communism (unless you're one of those seriously paranoid 'cultural Marxism herp-a-derp the whole world is controlled by the communist conspiracy but you haven't noticed yet!' types), I can't see even the faintest idea of 'logic' here...but would be more than happy to be 'enlightened'...

[sattvika]

Is your username sanskrit by any chance?

Yes. I, however, am Russian and do not speak a word of it :)



I'd be interested in knowing why sattvika holds that position.

I support the consolidation of humanity under one culture and elimination of nations and states by any means. Whether this happens through brutal wars or peaceful immigration and intermarriage makes no difference to me.

By "culture," I don't mean a national culture like "German" or "American," I mean one language (an artificial one such as Esperanto would be best), one currency, one people, one government, worldwide.

I am fully aware that had the Germans won I would not be around today (nor would most of my friends), but I truly believe humanity would have been better off in the long run, as the "consolidation" period in which Hitler tore down countries and eradicated ethnic groups would have begun much sooner and would probably have completed by now. Only after such conflicts are settled can humans stop competing with one another as "tribes" and begin to efficiently advance as a collective.

There are two ways to do this, as I already mentioned: education and a prolonged period of immigration, intermarriage and mixed-race children, or a cataclysmic war in which one ethnic group emerges victorious. Both pathways to a unified humanity have their strengths and weaknesses.

Anyways, that's just my personal belief.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Anyways, that's just my personal belief.
and it will probably get you banned.


we dont take kindly to eugenicists and genocide apologists 'round here.

[Viet Minh]

I support the consolidation of humanity under one culture and elimination of nations and states by any means. Whether this happens through brutal wars or peaceful immigration and intermarriage makes no difference to me.

Well it really should! I am an internationalist, but the way to achieve this global unity is to break down borders from within, not to expand them with violence and force.


By "culture," I don't mean a national culture like "German" or "American," I mean one language (an artificial one such as Esperanto would be best), one currency, one people, one government, worldwide.

I agree in principle, but you can't force this monoculture. Language is an organic entity, in constant flux and evolution. With the advent of mass immigration/ emigration and global communication (such as the internet for example) new modes of communication and common language emerge. And as societies and cultures integrate, so does language. One good example of this is 'Spanglish'.

And my issue with the one World Government is the simple fact that if that Government moves towards the right, the whole of humanity is fucked and there's nowhere to seek refuge.


I am fully aware that had the Germans won I would not be around today (nor would most of my friends), but I truly believe humanity would have been better off in the long run, as the "consolidation" period in which Hitler tore down countries and eradicated ethnic groups would have begun much sooner and would probably have completed by now. Only after such conflicts are settled can humans stop competing with one another as "tribes" and begin to efficiently advance as a collective.

Germany was under Nazi occupation, what prevented it from becoming this advanced efficient collective? Assuming of course it isn't one in your opinion.. ?


There are two ways to do this, as I already mentioned: education and a prolonged period of immigration, intermarriage and mixed-race children, or a cataclysmic war in which one ethnic group emerges victorious. Both pathways to a unified humanity have their strengths and weaknesses.

No shit!! :eek: In the former case, if you're somehow enforcing this intermarriage etc, its still a form of eugenics or even genocide, in the latter case, just gtfo.


Anyways, that's just my personal belief.

And you're entitled to it, but probably not here if you're seriously advocating the nazis' expansionist program..

[Sir Comradical]

Yes. I, however, am Russian and do not speak a word of it :)

Why did you choose a sanskrit name? I'm curious?

[Crux]

Trots would've thrown a party.
Modern day stalinists would have been nostalgic over fascist europe's corporatist economy and anti-imperialism against the U.S.

[tanklv]

Just a small thing: would HAVE not would "of".

Thought you'd like to know...

Thanks.

And I can't believe I just did that - and I usually hate spelling marms.

[Joseph S.]

I woldent be alive because that german wold of won the war.
The kapitalists wold engage into politick's with germany like nothing happend.
Thank god ore glorios leader gave the soviet people hope end courage to defeate them.
I will be for ever thankfull.
Just my 2 cents on the matter.
mzzltv

[tanklv]

Anyone else suspicious about this topic being in Opposing Ideologies as opposed to History and for it being centered around some fictitious scenario which seems to require an healthy bit of sympathy towards fascism and nazism to be considered plausible?

I can't help but get the impression that this may just be a troll of sorts.

No I don't - I think we are all going to find out how it would play our if the Nazis or repukes (but I repeat myself) or fascists had won in the 1930's instead of Roosevelt.

I fear we may soon find out with Barack Hoover Obama in the cat bird's seat...

[tanklv]

There is virtually no way the Nazis could possibly have won the war in the East. It was one of the most extreme strategic miscalculations in history.

Even if the Nazis overrun Moscow and the UK sues for peace, the U.S. will probably field the B-36 and all-out destroy Nazi Germany with a strategic nuclear weapon attack. The Nazis bit off more than they could chew (which is what Wages of Destruction should really impress upon you).


I didn't want to play in this sandbox, but what the hell:

The US wouldn't have even HAD the nuculear bomb - nor the USSR either - since all of their technology came from the Nazi's they spirited away from a collapsed Germany after the war. I'm afraid the Nazis would have been the first to go nuclear on both the US and Europe...

[Viet Minh]

I didn't want to play in this sandbox, but what the hell:

The US wouldn't have even HAD the nuculear bomb - nor the USSR either - since all of their technology came from the Nazi's they spirited away from a collapsed Germany after the war. I'm afraid the Nazis would have been the first to go nuclear on both the US and Europe...

Considering scientists like Einstein were instrumental in its development it may be that the Nazis would never have developed nuclear weapons anyway, soviet technology would have aided them greatly but stll not to the point they could mount a sufficient attack across the atlantic and defeat the US, which lets face it was key to ww2. Maybe if they conquered the UK as well and were able to capitalise on their resources and military capabilities at the time.

[Joseph S.]

I didn't want to play in this sandbox, but what the hell:

The US wouldn't have even HAD the nuculear bomb - nor the USSR either - since all of their technology came from the Nazi's they spirited away from a collapsed Germany after the war. I'm afraid the Nazis would have been the first to go nuclear on both the US and Europe...
Yes thay wold hav ever heard of the manhaten project?
How the hell you think the capitalists were abel to nucke Japan.
Thay found a set of bleuprints in the fuhrer bunker and bild that bom.
:laugh:

[ComradeMan]

Yes thay wold hav ever heard of the manhaten project?
How the hell you think the capitalists were abel to nucke Japan.
Thay found a set of bleuprints in the fuhrer bunker and bild that bom.
:laugh:

:confused:

Err.... no

The Manhattan project started in 1939 as a small project and was basically active from 1942 onwards. The Soviets had a nuclear project as early as 1940 but nothing much came to fruition during the war and most of the progress that was made was due to espionage. The German Uranverein had also made progress however it was the Allies who were in the driving seat with the nuclear project.

The Fuehrerbunker was taken by the Soviets on the 2nd May 1945- the first atomic bomb prototypes from the Manhattan project were around from 1943. The final specifications for "Little Boy" were made in February 1945 and the bomb was basically ready by 1945.

[Joseph S.]

:confused:

Err.... no
Yes im shocked 2 we agee on some thing.
;)

[ComradeMan]

Yes im shocked 2 we agee on some thing.
;)

Agree on what? I was actually showing how your assertion was ahistorical.

[Joseph S.]

Agree on what? I was actually showing how your assertion was ahistorical.
Well we both agree that the capitalist's dident need German technologies as spoils of war to build a nucke.
I was being sarcastic in the last frase.
Why doe you think i mentioned the manhaten project?

[A Marxist Historian]

I disagree.

At the onset of the Battle of Britain, Britain and her Imperial allies along with the remnants of the Free Polish and Free French etc were alone in facing the full fury of the Luftwaffe. It was no half-hearted attempt. The island of Britain was basically a giant aircraft carrier off the northwestern coast of Europe. The failure to defeat Britain in the air battle was a major setback for the Nazis and a turning point in the second world war. Remember, the Nazis were not at war with "England" they were at war with Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa etc etc. The allied success maintained the Atlantic sea-routes under allied control.

Ah, the full fury of that pathetic imitation of a military leader Goering.

If Hitler had devoted even a quarter of the effort to build up the Luftwaffe that he devoted to Barbarossa, you would have had a far larger Luftwaffe that could have swept the skies easily. Hitler didn't, for the simple reason that he didn't want to conquer England, he wanted a deal with England. Which is why Hess, Hitler's number 2, flew to England to make one.

And the Luftwaffe didn't even really need control over the English skies. All that was needed was control over the English Channel so that the British Navy could not interfere with the crossing. There is simply no way that the English army could have held off a force even a quarter of the size of Operation Barbarossa, especially after the Dunkirk disaster. And the US army barely existed on Pearl Harbor Day.

Canada, Australia etc. were just as safe from the Germans as was the USA. But once England was occupied, they were no longer relevant. Sure the US and England in exile would have controlled the Atlantic sea routes. So what? Without England as a base, invading the continent would have been physically impossible.

To understand military history, it is necessary to pay attention to elementary geography.


The North Africa campaign was by no means a sideshow- the Middle Eastern/N.African oil fields were at stake as well as vital control of the Suez Canal-remembering that Britian controlled Gibraltar too, this meant that the Allies effectively controlled the Mediterranean. Mussolini's fleet were also half destroyed in the port of Taranto (Battle of Taranto Nov 1940) and finished in Greece at Cape Matapan (Mar 1941). The Allied control of the Mediterranean and N.Africa was a major blow to the Nazis and saw the turning point for the Italians- with the army humiliated and decimated and the navy destroyed- the "soft underbelly" of Europe was there for the pickings. This is where Spanish neutrality would also have come into play- Gibraltar? ;)

Ah yes, the "soft underbelly" of Europe, also known as Italy, the largest Nazi POW camp, with a remarkably large fraction of the English and US armies uselessly trapped in it almost till the very end of the war.

Germany wasn't really ever very interested in the Mediterranean, that was the issue between England and Italy, which Italy lost and England won, with a lot of American help. Once the Soviet Union and England fell, who controlled the Mediterranean would have become totally irrelevant from the German perspective.


And Berlin had a bomb with its name on it. Berlin was, I believe, the initial target of a nuclear attack because the Allies were convinced that it would only have been a matter of time before the Nazis developed such a weapon under the Uranverein operations; late on in the war they had certainly developed a fearsome fighter jet the Messerschmitt Me 262 Schwalbe and the bomber version, the Stormvogel- howeverGoering had not invested enough in the Heinkel project of 1939 and the eventual aircraft arrived too late in the end and was only operational after mid 1944.

No doubt it did. But by the time the bomb was ready for delivery, the European sector of WWII would have been over, so all the US could have done was to try to nuke Europe into the stone age. Which no doubt would have been done. And then the Nazis, who by then would already have had delivery capability, would have rushed their own Manhattan Project, and tried to nuked America into the stone age too.

Hitler wouldn't have been bothered by a few million Germans being nuked, par for the course in his book. And he had plenty of safe bomb shelters.

Actually, the only really effective technique for allout nuclear war is rockets and missiles. An area in which the Germans were *far* ahead of everyone else.


At the Second Battle of El Alamein the Allies had 1029 tanks to the Axis 547 and overall the Allies outnumbered the Axis by approx. 80 000 men- I don't think one extra Panzer division would have made much difference seeing as the largest Panzer divisions (such as the IVth Panzer during the invasion of Poland counted 341 tanks). The Afrika Korps under Rommel represented some of Hitler's "finest" troops with the most prestigious new equipment.

Given Rommel's superior generalship, I'm not so sure of that. But if he'd had two or three extra Panzer divisions, he would have walked right over the British. And if the Soviet Union had fallen by then, Hitler could have sent Rommel twenty if he felt like it. But he probably wouldn't have, as they would be kept in reserve for conquest of England instead, as soon as a few thousand more fighters could be cranked out to refight the Battle of Britain again and win this time.


As far as Japan was concerned- opinion in Japan was divided between two factions, the Northern Solution that wanted war against the Soviets and the Southern Solution that wanted war with the US and Britain- Soviet & US intelligence had already broken/revealed the Japanese main cypher, i.e. PURPLE and it became apparent that Japan did not intend to attack the Soviet Union. Had the Nazis won the battle of Moscow and held onto Moscow it would have meant defeat for Russia, but not necessarily the Soviet Union as a whole- it's a long way to Vladivostok.

Opinion had been divided for a while, but Khalkin Gol meant that the Northern Solution was not really in the cards, and the US oil embargo made the Southern Solution inevitable. To invade Siberia without the oil of Indonesia to fuel the tanks would have been suicide.

Had the Nazis won the battle of Moscow, the Soviet regime would probably have collapsed then and there. The moral blow of seeing Stalin himself flee for the Urals would have set off a huge wave of panic and collapse in the Stalinist hierarchy.

OTOH, it's quite recently been revealed that there were very serious rumblings of working class revolt as the Germans approached Moscow, with incidents of bureaucrats trying to flee the city and getting lynched by angry workers. That is why so many Trotskyists and other dissidents were shot by the NKVD in 1941. It is possible that if some of them had gotten out in the chaos and organized the Moscow workers, who wanted to defend their revolution and were extremely angry that most of the top bureaucrats were concerned only about their own skins, that the situation could have been reversed, without the Stalinist bureaucrats.

Stalin himself *considered* fleeing the city, but decided not to and managed to rally the city around him and restore workers' confidence in the regime. That was the true turning point of World War II. Stalingrad only consolidated and made certain what the Battle of Moscow already indicated, namely that the Nazi Blitzkrieg had finally been halted and now the war was going to go the other way.

-M.H.-

[ComradeMan]

Ah, the full fury of that pathetic imitation of a military leader Goering.

If Hitler had devoted even a quarter of the effort to build up the Luftwaffe that he devoted to Barbarossa, you would have had a far larger Luftwaffe that could have swept the skies easily. Hitler didn't, for the simple reason that he didn't want to conquer England, he wanted a deal with England. Which is why Hess, Hitler's number 2, flew to England to make one.

Goeing was a skilled pilot, fighter ace from WWI and not so well-disposed towards the Nazis as you may think. I am not forming apologetics for him, but to undervalue him as a military commander is naive I think.

Hitler was not complicit in the strange debacle of Rudolf Hess and promptly had his entire staff arrested declaring Hess to be a traitor. Hitler had even scrambled fighters to stop Hess from flying to Britain with orders to shoot him down. There were indeed many Nazis who probably did not want war with Britain and Hitler had not been ill-aversed to the idea of an alliance of some kind with Britian but by the time the war was underway things were different and to postulate that Hess was in some way playing out Hitler's wishes is untenable historically.

The other thing you forget is that the major obstacle in the invasion of Britain was the relatively small size of Kriegsmarine that had been badly damaged in the earlier Norwegian campaign in comparison to the Royal Navy and that the Luftwaffe has a poor record in naval actions.

In terms of air power the total Axis airpower in Operation Barbarossa, including Italian, Romanian and Finnish was 4,389 aircraft as opposed 2,550 aircaft for the Battle of Britain. In terms of total forces it's not so easy. Aircraft are expensive and pilots need far more training and are far more vulnerable than mass infantry on the ground.


And the Luftwaffe didn't even really need control over the English skies. All that was needed was control over the English Channel so that the British Navy could not interfere with the crossing. There is simply no way that the English army could have held off a force even a quarter of the size of Operation Barbarossa,

Think about the logistics of sending a Barbarossa size force over the English Channel/Southern North sea without total air superiority on land and with the British Royal Navy sailing down at you from Scotland, they weren't located in the Channel, but at the northernmost point of Scotland. The southern British coast is also notoriously difficult to invade with a large force due to geographical features. It's one thing to invade a country in continental Europe where you have roads and flat areas and, in the case of France, fill up with petrol on your way, it's another thing to invade an island. ;)

"To understand military history, it is necessary to pay attention to elementary geography."

"The great majority of military historians believe Operation Sea Lion would not have succeeded. Kenneth Macksey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Macksey) asserts it would have only been possible if the Royal Navy had refrained from large scale intervention[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion#cite_note-38) and the Germans had assaulted in July 1940 (although Macksey conceded they were unprepared at that time),[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion#cite_note-39) while others such as Peter Fleming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Fleming_%28writer%29), Derek Robinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Robinson_%28novelist%29) and Stephen Bungay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Bungay) believe the operation would have most likely resulted in a disaster for the Germans.
Adolf Galland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Galland), commander of Luftwaffe fighters at the time, claimed invasion plans were not serious and that there was a palpable sense of relief in the Wehrmacht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht) when it was finally called off. Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_von_Rundstedt) also took this view and thought that Hitler never seriously intended to invade Britain and the whole thing was a bluff, to put pressure on the British Government to come to terms.[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion#cite_note-40) In fact in November 1939 the German Naval staff produced a study (on the possibility of an invasion of Britain) and concluded that it required two preconditions, air and naval superiority, neither of which Germany ever had.[42]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion#cite_note-41)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion#Chances_of_success


Canada, Australia etc. were just as safe from the Germans as was the USA. But once England was occupied, they were no longer relevant. Sure the US and England in exile would have controlled the Atlantic sea routes. So what? Without England as a base, invading the continent would have been physically impossible.

That's presuming that the hypothetical "Battle for Britain" would have been mopped up quickly by the German forces, which I don't think you can say so easily.


Ah yes, the "soft underbelly" of Europe, also known as Italy, the largest Nazi POW camp, with a remarkably large fraction of the English and US armies uselessly trapped in it almost till the very end of the war. Germany wasn't really ever very interested in the Mediterranean, that was the issue between England and Italy, which Italy lost and England won, with a lot of American help. Once the Soviet Union and England fell, who controlled the Mediterranean would have become totally irrelevant from the German perspective.

That's absolutely nonsensical. The "soft underbelly" of Europe, i.e. Italy is basically a land-bridge from the oil-rich fields of N.Africa into the heart of Europe pointing directly at Austria, ergo Germany. The control of the Suez Canal was also of importance too. If you control the Mediterranean you have a direct route into Europe.


Given Rommel's superior generalship, I'm not so sure of that. But if he'd had two or three extra Panzer divisions, he would have walked right over the British.

Given Montgomery's superior generalship I don't think an extra Panzer division (I notice now two or three) would have made a difference. How exactly would Hitler have sent those divisions and where from? Would he have had to weaken his forces in the East?

The way I look at it this, the Germans' secret weapon was basically blitzkrieg, the surprise "lightning" attack and the dirty tricks too (the French had not perceived the threat of Hitler invading through "neutral" Belgium for example)- in this they had great success but once the battle became protracted and larger movements became necessary they were not so successful. Blitzkrieg worked against Poland, The Netherlands, France- but the USSR, over 40 times the size? It's one thing to conquer a territory in military terms, it's another thing to hold on to that territory and not become overstretched. Had Moscow fallen in December 1941 I think Stalin would have caught a bullet from someone on his own side and a general such as Zhukov would have taken over. The Russians would have done their usual trick, retreat back to the Urals- and wait for the winter months to pass leaving Germany with immense supply lines to protect and a war of attrition at local level, such as the resistance at Brest (Poland). I think they would have become overstretched in this sense in Western Europe and that's how I come to my original conclusion.

I suppose it does leave us with the quote by Montgomery: "One of the great laws of war is never invade Russia"

[DarkPast]

Goeing was a skilled pilot, fighter ace from WWI and not so well-disposed towards the Nazis as you may think. I am not forming apologetics for him, but to undervalue him as a military commander is naive I think.

Heh, doesn't neccesarily make him a good commander, though, does it?;)
Also there's the whole thing about him taking all those drugs and leading a very decadent lifestyle (unlike in WW1, when he was quite fit).

Oh, and Hitler was a fairly good soldier, too. Even had an original idea to take out enemy fortifications with paratroopers (or something like that).


Hitler was not complicit in the strange debacle of Rudolf Hess and promptly had his entire staff arrested declaring Hess to be a traitor. Hitler had even scrambled fighters to stop Hess from flying to Britain with orders to shoot him down. There were indeed many Nazis who probably did not want war with Britain and Hitler had not been ill-aversed to the idea of an alliance of some kind with Britian but by the time the war was underway things were different and to postulate that Hess was in some way playing out Hitler's wishes is untenable historically.

If I'm not mistaken, Hitler tried to get a separate peace with Britain several times - my WW2-knowledge is a bit rusty and the connection here is slow, so can't get you the sources now.


(the French had not perceived the threat of Hitler invading through "neutral" Belgium for example)

This is something I never quite understood. It was exactly what the germans did in WW1 - just what was the French command thinking here???

[A Marxist Historian]

Well here it is my view, and tell me what you guys think:
If Nazi would defeat soviet union (maybe by attacking earlier so Mr. Winter would not get them) they would crate Lebensraum, "free" Ukraine people by making Ukraine, "freeing" Russians and making Russia (but a lot smaller then today) and some others ethnic groups living in SU, as products of dismantling SU and Communist Party. Afther that, UK and USA would not stand much change against Reich and would not probably come to Normandy or any kind of similar operation. UK would probably accept peace (surrender), because of being bombarded or nuked. Germany would be Superpower, there would be less European countries, I would live in Germany and probably speak German, would not know anything about Holocaust (not only me but majority of planet) and would be proud German. Asia would be under Japan Control and Japan would be one of Superpowers too, probably would get Siberia under its control too. My quick 5 min view about it.

Well, Valdemar, what I think is that that posting did not assist you in your desire to get yourself unrestricted. It is unclear from the posting if your fantasy of being a "proud German" in the Thousand Year Reich is appealing to you or horrifying.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Goeing was a skilled pilot, fighter ace from WWI and not so well-disposed towards the Nazis as you may think. I am not forming apologetics for him, but to undervalue him as a military commander is naive I think.

During WWI, Goering was a skilled flyboy. Twenty years later he was an overweight drunken fool, and one of the top leaders of the Nazi regime. If he was not well disposed to the party of which he was one of the leaders, that was because he by then was more interested in wine, women and song.


Hitler was not complicit in the strange debacle of Rudolf Hess and promptly had his entire staff arrested declaring Hess to be a traitor. Hitler had even scrambled fighters to stop Hess from flying to Britain with orders to shoot him down. There were indeed many Nazis who probably did not want war with Britain and Hitler had not been ill-aversed to the idea of an alliance of some kind with Britian but by the time the war was underway things were different and to postulate that Hess was in some way playing out Hitler's wishes is untenable historically.


I think matters were a bit more complicated than you think. Arresting Hess's staff and even going through the motions of trying to shoot down his plane might have been necessary measures to make the Hess peace initiative believable. If Churchill had responded to it postiively, the arrested staff could have been quietly smuggled across the English Channel to help Hess out.

But even if Hitler really was utterly averse to Hess's move by then, the fact is that Hess was one of the very top Nazi leaders.


The other thing you forget is that the major obstacle in the invasion of Britain was the relatively small size of Kriegsmarine that had been badly damaged in the earlier Norwegian campaign in comparison to the Royal Navy and that the Luftwaffe has a poor record in naval actions.

In terms of air power the total Axis airpower in Operation Barbarossa, including Italian, Romanian and Finnish was 4,389 aircraft as opposed 2,550 aircaft for the Battle of Britain. In terms of total forces it's not so easy. Aircraft are expensive and pilots need far more training and are far more vulnerable than mass infantry on the ground.

Think about the logistics of sending a Barbarossa size force over the English Channel/Southern North sea without total air superiority on land and with the British Royal Navy sailing down at you from Scotland, they weren't located in the Channel, but at the northernmost point of Scotland. The southern British coast is also notoriously difficult to invade with a large force due to geographical features. It's one thing to invade a country in continental Europe where you have roads and flat areas and, in the case of France, fill up with petrol on your way, it's another thing to invade an island. ;)

"To understand military history, it is necessary to pay attention to elementary geography."

"The great majority of military historians believe Operation Sea Lion would not have succeeded. Kenneth Macksey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Macksey) asserts it would have only been possible if the Royal Navy had refrained from large scale intervention[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion#cite_note-38) and the Germans had assaulted in July 1940 (although Macksey conceded they were unprepared at that time),[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion#cite_note-39) while others such as Peter Fleming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Fleming_%28writer%29), Derek Robinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Robinson_%28novelist%29) and Stephen Bungay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Bungay) believe the operation would have most likely resulted in a disaster for the Germans.
Adolf Galland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Galland), commander of Luftwaffe fighters at the time, claimed invasion plans were not serious and that there was a palpable sense of relief in the Wehrmacht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wehrmacht) when it was finally called off. Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_von_Rundstedt) also took this view and thought that Hitler never seriously intended to invade Britain and the whole thing was a bluff, to put pressure on the British Government to come to terms.[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion#cite_note-40) In fact in November 1939 the German Naval staff produced a study (on the possibility of an invasion of Britain) and concluded that it required two preconditions, air and naval superiority, neither of which Germany ever had.[42]" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion#cite_note-41)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion#Chances_of_success

That's presuming that the hypothetical "Battle for Britain" would have been mopped up quickly by the German forces, which I don't think you can say so easily.

There is some validity in what you say, but with Europe under firm control with a nonexistent Soviet Union, the entire Nazi European empire could have been reconcentrated to crank out planes like hotcakes. Not instantaneously, perhaps it'd have taken as much as a year of preparation after the Soviet surrender. But it would have been doable, and then the war in Europe would be over.

By the way, this is one reason that Hitler thought he had to invade the Soviet Union first. If the whole German war effort had been concentrated against England, then when Stalin felt Soviet forces were ready, by Soviet planning in 1942, he might well have invaded Germany, the staff were drawing up plans for that. And perhaps quite successfully, despite the embarrassing failure in the Finnish campaign. The Soviets after all did have more and better tanks than the Germans had in June '41, and more planes too, though not necessarily better.


That's absolutely nonsensical. The "soft underbelly" of Europe, i.e. Italy is basically a land-bridge from the oil-rich fields of N.Africa into the heart of Europe pointing directly at Austria, ergo Germany. The control of the Suez Canal was also of importance too. If you control the Mediterranean you have a direct route into Europe.

That was the theory when the Allies invaded Italy. Didn't quite work out that way, now did it? And that's with a fullblown anti-Mussolini revolution going on in Italy, by the way.

Frankly, I think the real reason for the Italian invasion was to suppress the Italian workers revolution, something that Churchill and Roosevelt cared for even less than they cared for Hitler.

The best and most accurate American WWII novel about Europe is Catch 22, which brilliantly conveys just what the Allied invasion of Italy was all about.

As for controlling the Mediterranean, well, they could have invaded the Balkans instead, Churchill proposed that idea. However, the Balkans are even better defensive territory for an army invading from the South than Italy is, and people still remembered Churchill's Gallipoli disaster in WWI.

No, once England fell, who controlled the Mediterranean would be of no great importance.


Given Montgomery's superior generalship I don't think an extra Panzer division (I notice now two or three) would have made a difference. How exactly would Hitler have sent those divisions and where from? Would he have had to weaken his forces in the East?

That's the whole point. Hitler was not about to do any such thing, as the Eastern Front was the only front that was *important.*

But if the Nazi Blitzkrieg had carried, Moscow had surrendered and the Soviet Union had collapsed, Hitler could have sent Rommel all he needed. And I suppose that's just what he would have done, to give the army something to do while the necessary preparations for Battle of Britain Round II proceeeded, as that could not have been instantaneous.



The way I look at it this, the Germans' secret weapon was basically blitzkrieg, the surprise "lightning" attack and the dirty tricks too (the French had not perceived the threat of Hitler invading through "neutral" Belgium for example)- in this they had great success but once the battle became protracted and larger movements became necessary they were not so successful. Blitzkrieg worked against Poland, The Netherlands, France- but the USSR, over 40 times the size? It's one thing to conquer a territory in military terms, it's another thing to hold on to that territory and not become overstretched. Had Moscow fallen in December 1941 I think Stalin would have caught a bullet from someone on his own side and a general such as Zhukov would have taken over. The Russians would have done their usual trick, retreat back to the Urals- and wait for the winter months to pass leaving Germany with immense supply lines to protect and a war of attrition at local level, such as the resistance at Brest (Poland). I think they would have become overstretched in this sense in Western Europe and that's how I come to my original conclusion.

I suppose it does leave us with the quote by Montgomery: "One of the great laws of war is never invade Russia"


As Napoleon put it, in military affairs the moral is to the material as ten is to one. Given the huge symbolic as well as industrial importance of Moscow, I think the fall of Moscow would have led to the sudden collapse of the Soviet regime, perhaps much in the same fashion as it collapsed 50 years later, but with even more tragic consequences.

If Zhukov put a bulletin into Stalin *before* the fall of Moscow, and rallied the troops around a liberated Soviet Union returning to the path of Lenin, then things would also have been very different indeed, but in a good way.

I am not in general in favor of such things, but given Stalin's miserable and downright traitorous failure to defend the Soviet Union from Hitler, which even Stalin recognized (according to several accounts, he offered his resignation as party leader to the Politburo, which of course turned it down), I think that would have been justifiable at that point.

-M.H.-

[Nox]

rallied the troops around a liberated Soviet Union returning to the path of Lenin

Are there really still people out there who think Stalin wasn't following the path of Lenin?

[ComradeMan]

...

@MH

This is an interesting discussion and although I disagree with some of your points I don't underrate them- as I said at the beginning it's all counter-factual and relies of "if's" and "maybe's". At the end of the day in terms of historical fact I don't think Hitler's plan to invade the Soviet Union would have ever worked- but that's not really the argument here.

I think the "problem" is-

1) We disagree on the importance of the Mediterranean- in my opinion the N.African oil fields were vital and so was control of Suez. Don't forget that the British still held out in the Middle-East with the oil reserves there too. In fact, with the disastrous 6th Army campaign and Stalingrad Hitler came up with another of his crazy ideas of somehow linking through in a pincer movement from..... N. Africa..... :lol: Needless to say that strategy went into the toilet of history.

2) I disagree that the invasion of Britain would have been a) a success and if a) then b) quick and easy.

3) Capturing Moscow and even Stalingrad (what was left of it) was seen by the Nazis as defeat of the Soviet Union- as indeed some German newspapers had initially reported when Stalingrad was pounded- however the USSR is a lot bigger and there is a hell of a lot of territory to the East... if you catch me. Like I said before- the blitzkrieg part, okay- fine- but the after part is a different matter.

The one thing I will say in slight defense of Stalin.... OMG OMG :lol: is that he does get a bad rep for a lot of stuff (justifiably) but at the same time he was continuing a lot of what Lening had started. This isn't apologetics for Stalin... just saying.

[hatzel]

The one thing I will say in slight defense of Stalin.... OMG OMG :lol: is that he does get a bad rep for a lot of stuff (justifiably) but at the same time he was continuing a lot of what Lening had started. This isn't apologetics for Stalin... just saying.

If it isn't apologetics for Stalin, then it must be...having a go at Lenin for starting that shit! :laugh:

Beyond that (and so that this post doesn't get deleted for spam or such :rolleyes:)...yeah, I think we've established that anybody who invades Russia is destined to failure because it's literally impossible to push anybody back about a million zillion miles to Mongolia or somewhere, so that alone makes this scenario somewhat unlikely. North African oil, probably important. I mean, we can think of that old story about how, had Sweden not sold iron to Germany, they would have just totally run out of munitions and all that in about 1942 or something. Or, they would have invaded Sweden to force the matter, more likely. Perhaps a similar situation would be true in North Africa, or elsewhere, as oil was obviously needed to fuel that whole war machine thing, you know, even if it didn't necessarily have to come from that exact location, that's just more...convenient, perhaps...?

(If you have any idea what I'm saying, then tell me, because I sure don't! :lol:)

[Leftie]

, cos of the whole stalin trying to murder the entire population of ukraine by starvation thing in 1930s.

I lolled.

[Dr Mindbender]

Are there really still people out there who think Stalin wasn't following the path of Lenin?

Yes.

If Stalin was following Lenin's path, Nazi Germany would probably never have existed. If Stalin had allowed the German communists to form an alliance in the 1928 election as per the true Leninist path of internationalism the hammer and sickle might have been flying over Berlin instead of the swastika.

[Joseph S.]

ukrainian citizens saw the nazis as liberators, cos of the whole stalin trying to murder the entire population of ukraine by starvation thing in 1930s
Lies capitalist propaganda.

[Comrade Trotsky]

Laughing my fucking ass off at the anti-revisionists denying the holodomor. You sound just as bad as holocaust deniers :lol:

From wiki (it's cited near the bottom, if you don't trust wiki itself)




The enormous territorial gains of 1941 presented Germany with vast areas to pacify and administer. For the majority of people of the Soviet Union, the Nazi invasion was viewed as a brutal act of unprovoked aggression. While it is important to note that not all parts of Soviet society viewed German advance in this way, the majority of Soviet population indeed viewed German forces as occupiers – not liberators. The policies of Nazi Germany itself was the catalyst for such response from the people of the Soviet Union. In areas such as Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania (which had been conquered by the Soviet Union in 1940) the Wehrmacht was welcomed by most of the native population as well as some Soviet citizens. This was particularly true of the recently Soviet occupied territories of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus, which greeted the Germans as liberators from Soviet rule.


(Apparently I have to have over 25 posts to add the link, so just look up the wiki article on the eastern front, then go down to occupation.)


So you see, while it was certianly no majority, It wasn't just "filthy fascist ukranian kulak traitors." There were indeed quite afew people who saw them as liberators.

That is in no way trying to talk up the freakin' Nazis, but to completely deny that this happened is fucking ridiculous.

[ComradeMan]

....

It's easy for people who didn't see their families starve to death to speak from a history book. I don't think the Ukrainian famine was a deliberate famine designed to kill Ukrainians but I do think it was the culmination of disastrous policies, indiferrence and once underway Stalin didn't give a shit to be frank. Criminal negligence tinged with a usefulness to Stalin.

If the British tried to deny the Irish famine (which they mostly don't), people here would be howling about imperialists etc, but I suppose it's okay if it's Uncle Joe who did it.

[Comintern1919]

If the British tried to deny the Irish famine (which they mostly don't), people here would be howling about imperialists etc, but I suppose it's okay if it's Uncle Joe who did it.

It's as usual. If someone says the allies did bad things, it's always true , but if someone says Stalin and the soviets made mistakes, It's only US/capitalist/western propaganda.

As if communists couldn't lie...

[ComradeMan]

It's as usual. If someone says the allies did bad things, it's always true , but if someone says Stalin and the soviets made mistakes, It's only US/capitalist/western propaganda.

As if communists couldn't lie...

Until the left finally "purges" itself of apologists and historical re-enactment societies then it will continue to splinter and fragment into stupid tendency factions. It takes maturity to own up to mistakes. But hell we've got people here who support douche.. I mean Juche and form apologetics for Pol Pot and the Sendero Luminoso, so what's yet another tragic human catastrophe in the grand scheme of things? :(

[Nox]

Don't even get me started on Stalin's collectivisation.

Yes, around 10-20 million died as a result of collectivisation, but the grain yield doubled in the space of a few years, with roughly the same area of land being cultivated.

Stalin relied very very heavily on the improved yield of the collectivisation to make up for the huge amounts of money he'd spend on industry. The Kulaks revolted and sabotaged the harvest, greatly damaging the yield, thus there was not enough food for everyone, and he couldn't afford to import enough food because he had already invested huge amounts of money into the industry.

Now I don't like to make excuses, and I don't fully support the rushed collectivisation, I think it should have been done more gradually, but at the end of the day if it weren't for the Kulaks then there would have been no famine. The proof is that the years after the Kulaks stopped revolting and sabotaging the harvest, the yield doubled from what it was before collectivisation.

Let's look at this step by step...

1.) Stalin collectivises farming so that he can export more to fund industry, and to stop any more food shortages in the future.
2.) Kulaks revolt and sabotage harvest.
3.) 10-20 million die.
4.) A year or two after, grain yield levels are double what they were before.

I genuinely don't see how anyone can't see the fact that the Kulaks caused the famine and that Collectivisation was one of the best things that happened in the Soviet Union as it doubled grain yields, funded industry which would later win the war, prevented any more famines in the Soviet Union (before collectivisation famines were regular, and in Imperial Russia there were famines up to every 5 years).

[ComradeMan]

It's not so much about the cause of the famine but more the reaction to it and the results.

[Nox]

To add to that, I can't understand how anyone would think collectivisation itself was what caused the famine, to think that is a huge double standard seeing as the collectivisation doubled the wheat yield.

[Nox]

Stalin was right to deny responsibility for the famine, yes it happened as a result of his policies - but without the Kulaks the famine would never have happened. You have to be seriously ignorant not to see that, as you would be ignoring all the evidence.

[Nox]

In fact, it wasn't even a result of Stalin's policies. His policies just made it possible to happen. His policies were excellent, with good intentions - there is a reason why the wheat yield doubled in a few years.

[DarkPast]

Until the left finally "purges" itself of apologists and historical re-enactment societies then it will continue to splinter and fragment into stupid tendency factions. It takes maturity to own up to mistakes. But hell we've got people here who support douche.. I mean Juche and form apologetics for Pol Pot and the Sendero Luminoso, so what's yet another tragic human catastrophe in the grand scheme of things? :(

Indeed. Some people here just don't seem to get that few people will rally behind the ideas of failed, long-dead dictators.

While the capitalists are responsible for even more deaths than the likes of Stalin or Pol Pot, it still doesn't mean that the latter were "good" and their killings were all justified.


If the British tried to deny the Irish famine (which they mostly don't),

You'd be surprised how ignorant they can be of the Victorian holocausts. A lot of people still have a romantic outlook on that period of history.

[o well this is ok I guess]

You know every terrible game you've played involving nazi's wielding unrealistic weaponry and wearing gas masks
That.

[ComradeMan]

,,,,

I think it's more about the lack of food aid early on and that export continued even when people were starving, almost like the Irish famine. Obviously it's difficult to find neutral sources on the topic. It's all very well saying that grain yield doubled.... but at what cost?

[DarkPast]

Yes, around 10-20 million died as a result of collectivisation, but the grain yield doubled in the space of a few years, with roughly the same area of land being cultivated.

Tsk tsk. Since you're a Stalin fan, I thought you'd know that 10-20 million includes all of Stalin's victims, including collectivisation, famine, deportations, gulags and executions.

[Nox]

I think it's more about the lack of food aid early on and that export continued even when people were starving, almost like the Irish famine. Obviously it's difficult to find neutral sources on the topic. It's all very well saying that grain yield doubled.... but at what cost?

Grain yield doubled after the famine, not during because the Kulaks destroyed some of the harvest :cool:

So far we've established:

- Collectivisation was a good thing
- The Kulaks caused the famine
- Stalin couldn't import enough food to make up for the shortage because he'd already spent the money on industry
- Without collectivisation, it's possible that we would be living in a National Socialist world right now.

And I am coming from a neutral perspective; I am very critical of the things Stalin did wrong, and I am only using solid facts and evidence, not opinion based statements.

As for him exporting wheat, I would guess that he was exporting it as part of trade agreements, or maybe those figures include the months before the famine. I really am not sure, I don't know too much about that.

[Nox]

Tsk tsk. Since you're a Stalin fan, I thought you'd know that 10-20 million includes all of Stalin's victims, including collectivisation, famine, deportations, gulags and executions.

My friend, I know that :)

I am just being generous to the Stalin critics :D

[DarkPast]

Um... don't you think that's... you know... just a wee bit too many?

[Nox]

Um... don't you think that's... you know... just a wee bit too many?

I'm accustomed to debating people who claim he killed up to 60 million people just with his collectivisation, so you can see why I am happy to say 10-20 million, even if it is still exaggurated :)

[ComradeMan]

....As for him exporting wheat, I would guess that he was exporting it as part of trade agreements, or maybe those figures include the months before the famine. I really am not sure, I don't know too much about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor#Extensive_export_of_grain_ and_other_food
"Extensive export of grain and other food

Some publications claim that after recognition of the famine situation in Ukraine during the drought and poor harvests, the Soviet government in Moscow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow) continued to export grain rather than retain its crop to feed the people,[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor#cite_note-42) though at a significantly lower rate than in previous years. In 1930–31, there had been 5,832,000 metric tons of grains exported. In 1931–32, grain exports declined to 4,786,000 metric tons. In 1932–33, grain exports were just 1,607,000 metric tons, and in 1933–34, this further declined to 1,441,000 metric tons.[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor#cite_note-DW471-43) Officially published data [45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor#cite_note-44) differed slightly:
Cereals (in tonnes):


1930 – 4,846,024
1931 – 5,182,835
1932 – 1,819,114 (~750,000 during the first half of 1932; from late April ~157,000 tonnes of grain was also imported)
1933 – 1,771,364 (~220,000 during the first half of 1933;[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor#cite_note-Tauger2001-45) from late March grain was also imported[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor#cite_note-46))

Only wheat (in tonnes):


1930 – 2,530,953
1931 – 2,498,958
1932 – 550,917
1933 – 748,248

In 1932, via Ukrainian commercial ports the following amounts were exported: 988,300 tons of grains and 16,500 tons of other types of cereals. In 1933, the totals were: 809,600 tons of grains, 2,600 tons of other cereals, 3,500 tons of meat, 400 tons of butter, and 2,500 tons of fish. Those same ports imported the following amounts: less than 67,200 tons of grains and cereals in 1932, and 8,600 tons of grains in 1933.
The following amounts were received from other Soviet ports: in 1932, 164,000 tons of grains, 7,300 tons of other cereals, 31,500 tons of, and no more than 177,000 tons of meat and butter; in 1933, 230,000 tons of grains, 15,300 tons if other cereals, 100 tons of meat, 900 tons of butter, and 34,300 tons of fish.
Michael Ellman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ellman) states that the 1932–33 grain exports amounted to 1.8 million tonnes, which would have been enough to feed 5 million people for one year."

[Nox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor#Extensive_export_of_grain_ and_other_food
"Extensive export of grain and other food

Some publications claim that after recognition of the famine situation in Ukraine during the drought and poor harvests, the Soviet government in Moscow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow) continued to export grain rather than retain its crop to feed the people,[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor#cite_note-42) though at a significantly lower rate than in previous years. In 1930–31, there had been 5,832,000 metric tons of grains exported. In 1931–32, grain exports declined to 4,786,000 metric tons. In 1932–33, grain exports were just 1,607,000 metric tons, and in 1933–34, this further declined to 1,441,000 metric tons.[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor#cite_note-DW471-43) Officially published data [45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor#cite_note-44) differed slightly:
Cereals (in tonnes):


1930 – 4,846,024
1931 – 5,182,835
1932 – 1,819,114 (~750,000 during the first half of 1932; from late April ~157,000 tonnes of grain was also imported)
1933 – 1,771,364 (~220,000 during the first half of 1933;[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor#cite_note-Tauger2001-45) from late March grain was also imported[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Holodomor#cite_note-46))
Only wheat (in tonnes):


1930 – 2,530,953
1931 – 2,498,958
1932 – 550,917
1933 – 748,248
In 1932, via Ukrainian commercial ports the following amounts were exported: 988,300 tons of grains and 16,500 tons of other types of cereals. In 1933, the totals were: 809,600 tons of grains, 2,600 tons of other cereals, 3,500 tons of meat, 400 tons of butter, and 2,500 tons of fish. Those same ports imported the following amounts: less than 67,200 tons of grains and cereals in 1932, and 8,600 tons of grains in 1933.
The following amounts were received from other Soviet ports: in 1932, 164,000 tons of grains, 7,300 tons of other cereals, 31,500 tons of, and no more than 177,000 tons of meat and butter; in 1933, 230,000 tons of grains, 15,300 tons if other cereals, 100 tons of meat, 900 tons of butter, and 34,300 tons of fish.
Michael Ellman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ellman) states that the 1932–33 grain exports amounted to 1.8 million tonnes, which would have been enough to feed 5 million people for one year."

Thanks for that, I don't know about the reasons why he continued exporting, but I'm sure he had a reason.

Perhaps at that time they weren't aware of the scale of the famine in terms of deaths when they were exporting?

[ComradeMan]

Thanks for that, I don't know about the reasons why he continued exporting, but I'm sure he had a reason.

Perhaps at that time they weren't aware of the scale of the famine in terms of deaths when they were exporting?

Here's another article I found that includes some Russian sources.

http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/bilinsky.html

[A Marxist Historian]

@MH

This is an interesting discussion and although I disagree with some of your points I don't underrate them- as I said at the beginning it's all counter-factual and relies of "if's" and "maybe's". At the end of the day in terms of historical fact I don't think Hitler's plan to invade the Soviet Union would have ever worked- but that's not really the argument here.

I think the "problem" is-

1) We disagree on the importance of the Mediterranean- in my opinion the N.African oil fields were vital and so was control of Suez. Don't forget that the British still held out in the Middle-East with the oil reserves there too. In fact, with the disastrous 6th Army campaign and Stalingrad Hitler came up with another of his crazy ideas of somehow linking through in a pincer movement from..... N. Africa..... :lol: Needless to say that strategy went into the toilet of history.

2) I disagree that the invasion of Britain would have been a) a success and if a) then b) quick and easy.

3) Capturing Moscow and even Stalingrad (what was left of it) was seen by the Nazis as defeat of the Soviet Union- as indeed some German newspapers had initially reported when Stalingrad was pounded- however the USSR is a lot bigger and there is a hell of a lot of territory to the East... if you catch me. Like I said before- the blitzkrieg part, okay- fine- but the after part is a different matter.

The one thing I will say in slight defense of Stalin.... OMG OMG :lol: is that he does get a bad rep for a lot of stuff (justifiably) but at the same time he was continuing a lot of what Lening had started. This isn't apologetics for Stalin... just saying.

Well, I'd have to say you made some interesting points too, I did present an invasion of Britain as easier than it would have been. But I do think that *if* the Soviet Union had collapsed it would have been doable if difficult.

The oilfields were fairly important, but the Soviet Union even then had quite a lot of oil, indeed that's why Hitler went for the Caucasus and ended up getting defeated at Stalingrad. The Nazis did manage to occupy the oilfields around Grozny for a while. So the Germans didn't really need Mideast oil.

Nor did the Brits really need the Mideast oil either, Roosevelt could always supply them with oil. But if England fell, the British Army could only recruit colonial troops, which might well have revolted if England was in Nazi hands. So it would have been only a matter of time before the Germans got their hands on the British colonial empire in Africa too.

As to fighting on without Moscow, well, the Bolshevik regime was just *not* another form of Tsarism. The Tsars could retreat from Moscow into the hinterlands, as their basis of support was the Russian nobility.

With Moscow and Ukraine gone and Leningrad surrounded, the Russian workers regime would be dead as a doornail, as those were the vital proletarian centers. All that would be left would be the backwards periphery. The incredible determination Russian workers showed in Moscow and Leningrad and Stalingrad wasn't just Russian patriotism and certainly wasn't Stalin worship. It's because the Russian workers thought they had their very own state to defend. You certainly saw nothing like that in any *bourgeois* state assaulted by Hitler, most of them crumbled like papermache.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Laughing my fucking ass off at the anti-revisionists denying the holodomor. You sound just as bad as holocaust deniers :lol:

From wiki (it's cited near the bottom, if you don't trust wiki itself)




(Apparently I have to have over 25 posts to add the link, so just look up the wiki article on the eastern front, then go down to occupation.)


So you see, while it was certianly no majority, It wasn't just "filthy fascist ukranian kulak traitors." There were indeed quite afew people who saw them as liberators.

That is in no way trying to talk up the freakin' Nazis, but to completely deny that this happened is fucking ridiculous.

You are forgetting the Law of Wikipedia.

The accuracy of any Wikipedia entry is inversely proportional to the importance of the subject it concerns.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

It's easy for people who didn't see their families starve to death to speak from a history book. I don't think the Ukrainian famine was a deliberate famine designed to kill Ukrainians but I do think it was the culmination of disastrous policies, indiferrence and once underway Stalin didn't give a shit to be frank. Criminal negligence tinged with a usefulness to Stalin.

If the British tried to deny the Irish famine (which they mostly don't), people here would be howling about imperialists etc, but I suppose it's okay if it's Uncle Joe who did it.

Oh, he gave a shit alright, in fact modified his policies considerably when he realised disaster was impending. Soviet historians refer to that as the "Stalinist neo-NEP." A day late and a dollar short, as the saying goes.

It was indeed a culmination of disastrous policies. Why did the peasants starve? Because, as a result of Stalin's insanely ultraleft forced collectivization policy, there simply wasn't enough food produced in the Soviet Union to feed everybody in the summer-fall 1932 harvest. And this was not exactly a point at which, at the height of the Great Depression, that there was going to be any famine relief from outside.

So the peasants were the ones who starved to death, because the Soviet Union was after all a workers' state.

-M.H.-

[ComradeMan]

...

Perhaps we could start a new thread on this, although I fear it might descend into Stalinists Lies vs Western Lies as usual ;) :rolleyes:

[A Marxist Historian]

I think it's more about the lack of food aid early on and that export continued even when people were starving, almost like the Irish famine. Obviously it's difficult to find neutral sources on the topic. It's all very well saying that grain yield doubled.... but at what cost?

The best source is Stephen Wheatcroft's definitive work, The Years of Hunger. By the way, our Stalin fan is actually slandering Stalin a bit, the death toll was a "mere" 4-5 million.

The grain yield doubled after the tractor factories had finally cranked out enough tractors to make collectivization work. Stalin collectivized *while still building the factories*! Totally insane.

As for the kulaks, by the time of the famine they'd all been deported to Kazakhstan or what have you, millions of them, so they can hardly be blamed.

When the famine hit, the food exports were drastically curbed, in fact basically limited to fulfilling previously signed contractual agreements, which they *had* to fulfill, or quite possibly Britain would have declared war. Threats were made, there is record of that.

The worst single thing Stalin did *during* the famine was simply to pretend it wasn't happening, thereby obviously preventing any possible outside aid, and strongly discouraging any popular efforts to help the starving.

Recent documentary relations show that there were in fact quite a few secretive efforts authorized by Stalin of the Ukrainian Soviet regime to help the starving. Unfortunately, due to the extreme food shortage all over the Soviet Union, with all food reserves essentially wiped out, these efforts were a drop in the bucket.

-M.H.-