Hitler's Worst Mistake

[Grimberht]

He made a few mistakes, but invaded Russia cant be consider has one.. he had no choice! Plus, he nearly conquer it. But IMO a little top 3.

1) He's treatment of the jews: He destroyed the Poland economy. Instead of becoming a source of wealth and power, it cost him... a lot. All the logistic of actually executing his racist policies drained ressources that didnt contribute to the war effort. It became a huge bullet to carry.

2) Keeping 3 fronts in Russia. When he was slowed/stopped at Moskow doorstep, his generals suggested to centralize his forces and finish off Moskow, cutting the head of the dragon. He decided to keep pushin on all front and then come Stalingrad.

3) Keeping a Hardline provocative tone with the British. It has been studied a lot that after the flash defeat of France, most political leaders in Britain were seriously considering allying themself with Hitler. They actually couldnt, mostly because the public opinion wasnt on their side. Hitler, instead of offering good term that would show respect AND a good share, choosed to use threats and later in september gave the order to bomb them into submission, Which is the stupidiest thing you can ever think to acheive. The worst part is that a lot of sources says that he never really intended to attack Britain who he considered has brothers (and also.. pityful pirates of a nation). More over, he knew he had NOTHING to gain by invading the british isle... at best he would have dismantle the empire without havin any mean of claiming it for himself.

 

[Grimberht]

Huh? They collaborated in attacking and occupying Poland - that certainly makes them Allies for at least that time period.

If racing to conquer the most you can of a near defenseless country can be consider an actual "alliance"... granted its an alliance!

My memory is kinda blur on the events while capturing "Varsovie" (I think the english name is Warsaw, but not sure) but their was tension between the twos.. the germans were pretty scared to see the russian army "that" close. Nothing happen in the end, but tension were high.

 

[frekk]

Very well, I shall take that position.

Britain and France were allied with Germany in 1938. They were at war with Germany in 1939.

Poland was allied with Germany in 1938. They were at war with Germany in 1939.

The Soviet Union was allied with Germany in 1939 (through an agreed-upon pact kept well hidden that divided up Poland among them). They were at war with Germany in 1941.

That's like saying the USSR and USA were Cold War allies. They had all kinds of bilateral pacts.

There's a big difference between detente and alliance. An alliance is qualified by the fact that the members have a unified foreign policy. Poland and Germany were not Allies, despite Polish support for the German position at Munich and Polish participation in the irredentist dismembering of Czechoslovakia - they simply did not form a bloc with Germany on anything but this one single issue, and in all other respects had completely different foreign policy objectives.

Similarly, the M-R pact was not an alliance. The Germans didn't promise any help if the Japanese attacked, the Russians did not promise to help contain Britain or France. It was a nonaggression pact which delineated respective spheres of influence; not unlike Sykes-Picot.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

That's like saying the USSR and USA were Cold War allies.

No, it isn't.

The USA and the USSR were the two main forces AGAINST each other in the Cold War. Your statement is like saying that Japan and the U.S. were allies in 1943.

 

[frekk]

The USA and the USSR were the two main forces AGAINST each other in the Cold War.

And on what basis do we say that?

Arms buildup?

Proxy wars (*cough* Spain *cough*)?

Spy rings (*cough* Rote Kapelle, Leopold Trepper etc *cough*)?

The USSR was most certainly against Nazi Germany, despite Molotov-Ribbentrop. They had been maneuvering against the Nazis for quite some time - they even approached Britain in 1939 (before the attack on Poland) to propose a war against the Germans (the Anglo-Franco-Soviet talks of August 1939). Britain and France refused the Soviet proposal, on the basis that it didn't have sufficient guarantees for Estonian/Latvian sovereignty.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I notice that your evidence all is before the Soviet-German detant and Pact so it seems of little relevance.

 

[frekk]

I notice that your evidence all is before the Soviet-German detant and Pact so it seems of little relevance.

Not really. August 26 1939 is when the Anglo-Soviet talks were held on a mutual action against Germany; the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact was signed on August 24 1939 (Stalin was nothing if not duplicitous - before the ink was dry on Molotov-Ribbentrop he was opening negotiations with the British and French to attack Germany). Soviet spy rings were being set up in Germany in the early 30s and continued through to the end of the war (and beyond). And so on.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Spy rings exist even amongst close allies, For example, I don't think the existence of Soviet Spies in America means that they were not in Alliance between 1942 and 1945. Nor does duplicity mean they were not in alliance, Stalin, as you pointed out, was nothing if not duplicious. On the other hand, your proxy war, the one thing that really stands out was before this period. I see nothing her that shows that they weren't in alliance, much less were in opposition.

 

[Zardnaar]

The USSR and Germany weren't Allied in the traditional sense but they were allied up to a point. An aliance of convenience if anythign. USSR gave Germany huge amounts of natural resources after Poland was annexed. The Soviets also claimed territory off Romania as well due to the pact and it threw the baltic states and Finland under the bus.

 

[frekk]

Nor does duplicity mean they were not in alliance

Well yeah, it kind of does if you're stockpiling weapons and trying to put together an alliance to attack the other party. Especially considering the M-R didn't really make them "allies" in any normal sense of the term; they weren't sharing intelligence, weren't conducting war games or military exercises with one another, etc.

Importantly, there was NO mutual defence arrangement. Without that, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be defined as anything like an alliance.

On the other hand, your proxy war, the one thing that really stands out was before this period.

The Spanish Civil War ended some months before Molotov-Ribbentrop was signed, true. However: it was ongoing while Molotov-Ribbentrop was being negotiated.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Well yeah, it kind of does if you're stockpiling weapons and trying to put together an alliance to attack the other party.

How interesting. This will rewrite the history of entangling alliances in the 19th century. Specifically that there were almost no alliances.

Especially considering the M-R didn't really make them "allies" in any normal sense of the term; they weren't sharing intelligence, weren't conducting war games or military exercises with one another, etc.

Which Germany did not do with Italy, or Japan, either. The Soviets did however provide military aid for the invasion of Norway.

Importantly, there was NO mutual defence arrangement. Without that, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be defined as anything like an alliance.

I see. So I suppose Britain and the United States were not allies either?

The Spanish Civil War ended some months before Molotov-Ribbentrop was signed, true. However: it was ongoing while Molotov-Ribbentrop was being negotiated.

No, the Spanish Civil war ended months before negotiations began.

 

[frekk]

Which Germany did not do with Italy, or Japan, either.

Nonsense.

The Tripartite Pact harmonized foreign relations between the signatories and established a mutual defense arrangement, whereby the signatories "undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked" and that "joint technical commissions, to be appointed by the respective Governments of Japan, Germany and Italy, will meet without delay."

Molotov-Ribbentrop, by comparison, was simply a nonaggression treaty. There was no mutual defense arrangement, no sharing of technical data, etc.

The Soviets did however provide military aid for the invasion of Norway.

No "aid" was ever provided by the Soviets to the Germans. Aid implies donations of some form. The Soviets didn't donate anything to Germany. They traded with them, under the terms of the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement and the German-Soviet Credit Agreement (not Molotov-Ribbentrop, as is mistakenly believed by many). Raw materials were traded to Germany in return for loans, weapons, factory equipment, machinery, ships, and vehicles worth hundreds of millions of Reichsmark.

Perhaps you consider trade to be "military aid" but if this is the case, then the USA was also providing military aid for the Nazi invasion of Norway, and in fact for aggression against France and England. Trade between the US and Germany was brisk until the outbreak of war between the two countries. For instance, the main element of motorization for the Wehrmacht was the Opel Blitz truck, which was produced by a GM subsidiary using parts imported from the US. Ford also had plants in Germany, and was producing armaments using rubber and other raw materials imported from the US.

Does this mean the US was allied with Nazi Germany? I think it's obvious that this is patently absurd and your qualifications for an alliance are far too minimal and loose.

I see. So I suppose Britain and the United States were not allies either?

Not before the US entered the war, no. After US entry, they were formal allies by virtue of the Declaration by United Nations agreement.

No, the Spanish Civil war ended months before negotiations began.

Not in this universe.

The Germans had approached the Soviets in late 1938 regarding an agreement; the first proposal was tabled on December 1st of 1938.

 

[Yeekim]

There is absolutely nothing that indicates that it was a premeditated invasion unless you already go into reading the M-R Pact "knowing" that that's what it says.

A wonderful coincidence then, that the war started whole 7 days after signing of MRP.

I am once again humbled and amazed by your powers of self-deception.
Stalin knew that Germany shall attack Poland as soon as they'll receive confirmation of USSR that this move won't trigger war.
And he likewise knew that Poland shall be overwhelmed sooner or later, putting him in a position where he'll "have to attack himself to prevent Poland from being overrun"/sarcasm. That USSR attacked 2 weeks later than Germany was, in retrospect, a stroke of genius, allowing them to shift the blame - albeit some people likely would find a way to whitewash them even if they had shared a command center.

Had they wanted to "preserve Poland as a buffer state", all they needed to do was not to enter into MRP. Or to give up their demand for military access to Poland in tripartite negotiations with Britain and France - which they knew Poland would not and could not accept. Promise for trade embargo against Germany would've been quite sufficient instead.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Why is Cheezy so concerned with that question anyway? He ought to realize that if the USSR got stronger after taking its part of Poland, then the way USSR acquired it doesn't morally matter. His concern over that question reveals his petit-bourgeois morality - revolutionary morality is purely pragmatic. What's good for the state that protects the rights of the proletariat is automatically good.

 

[Dragonlord]

A wonderful coincidence then, that the war started whole 7 days after signing of MRP.

I am once again humbled and amazed by your powers of self-deception.
Stalin knew that Germany shall attack Poland as soon as they'll receive confirmation of USSR that this move won't trigger war.
And he likewise knew that Poland shall be overwhelmed sooner or later, putting him in a position where he'll "have to attack himself to prevent Poland from being overrun"/sarcasm. That USSR attacked 2 weeks later than Germany was, in retrospect, a stroke of genius, allowing them to shift the blame - albeit some people likely would find a way to whitewash them even if they had shared a command center.

Had they wanted to "preserve Poland as a buffer state", all they needed to do was not to enter into MRP. Or to give up their demand for military access to Poland in tripartite negotiations with Britain and France - which they knew Poland would not and could not accept. Promise for trade embargo against Germany would've been quite sufficient instead.

Quite right. Saves me replying to Cheezy again.

Why is Cheezy so concerned with that question anyway?

I'd love to know that, too. This is the 2nd thread we've argued about the MR-Pact and Poland.

I just can't comprehend why it should be wrong and evil for Nazi Germany to attack Poland on the one hand and morally permissible for the Soviet Union to do the very same thing 2 weeks later.
If anything, I feel that behaving like a jackal and jumping on an already badly battered foe from behind is even worse than an open attack.

BTW, let's not forget that Stalin swallowed the Baltic states at the same time. Was he 'protecting' them from Germany too?

Leaving the propaganda about 'protecting' the Poles aside, Cheezy's other argument sounds like good ol' Realpolitik: Stalin was 'forced' to occupy Eastern Poland to deny it to the Germans. All right, that's a valid argument if you leave morality aside, and I'll concede that doesn't prove they had agreed on the invasion beforehand; it doesn't DISPROVE it either, though.
I still find it telling that Germany and the SU sign a secret pact agreeing on borders dividing Poland, Hitler attacks one week later and the SU joins in the attack another 2 weeks later. Why should Stalin have signed the agreement in the first place, if not anticipating exactly what then happened?

What more do you need? A signed confession from Joe Stalin in his own hand?

 

[ParkCungHee]

Nonsense.

The Tripartite Pact harmonized foreign relations between the signatories

That's very impressive that you can say that with a straight face.

and established a mutual defense arrangement, whereby the signatories "undertake to assist one another with all political, economic and military means if one of the Contracting Powers is attacked" and that "joint technical commissions, to be appointed by the respective Governments of Japan, Germany and Italy, will meet without delay."

Which of course, never happened.

Molotov-Ribbentrop, by comparison, was simply a nonaggression treaty. There was no mutual defense arrangement, no sharing of technical data, etc.

There was however, a mutual agressive arrangement,

No "aid" was ever provided by the Soviets to the Germans. Aid implies donations of some form. The Soviets didn't donate anything to Germany. They traded with them, under the terms of the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement and the German-Soviet Credit Agreement (not Molotov-Ribbentrop, as is mistakenly believed by many). Raw materials were traded to Germany in return for loans, weapons, factory equipment, machinery, ships, and vehicles worth hundreds of millions of Reichsmark.

Aid does not always take the form of raw supplies. In this case it took the form of being able to refuel warships in Russia while invading Norway.

Not before the US entered the war, no. After US entry, they were formal allies by virtue of the Declaration by United Nations agreement.

Which is absurd because it does none of the things you have been demanding that a treaty provide. It has no mutual defense arrangement, no sharing of technology and military aid, no consultations in the event of war, etc. etc. etc.

Not in this universe.

The Germans had approached the Soviets in late 1938 regarding an agreement; the first proposal was tabled on December 1st of 1938.

And Negotiations didn't begin on that until the Summer of 1939.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

There was however, a mutual agressive arrangement,

I believe the correct term would be "mutual offense agreement", or to be short, "offensive pact". It certainly seems to be offending a lot of people here...

 

[Heraclius49]

There was however, a mutual agressive arrangement,

What about every other partition of Poland? Did that automatically make all the participants allied?

Aid does not always take the form of raw supplies. In this case it took the form of being able to refuel warships in Russia while invading Norway.

So Sweden lets Germany through its lands. This does not make them allies.

Which is absurd because it does none of the things you have been demanding that a treaty provide. It has no mutual defense arrangement, no sharing of technology and military aid, no consultations in the event of war, etc. etc. etc.

Ummm, Destroyers for Bases, Lend Lease, Etc, etc

 

[ParkCungHee]

What about every other partition of Poland? Did that automatically make all the participants allied?

Yes, yes it would. Prussia, Austria and Russia allied in a war off Agression against Poland.

Ummm, Destroyers for Bases, Lend Lease, Etc, etc

Are not in the Declaration of the United Nations. Nor did it pertain to most of the members of that agreement.

 

[azzaman333]

Attacking the rest of Europe.