Without Hitler, would the Germans have still lost WW2?

[TheLastOne36]

i was thinking, if Germany really did win WWII and captures all of Europe, how long would it be before someone revolts? Us Poles could teach you guys how to joke then after a while of weakening Germany, Germany would eventually have fallen, to the europeans. I'm predecting in the 50's or early 60's?

 

[Sharwood]

More likely, how long until Hitler himself was overthrown? I think that would be more likely to succeed without massive deaths.

 

[Agent327]

Goering actually negotiated the Munich Pact behind Hitler's back, presenting it to him as a fait accompli. I still think a Second World War likely would have happened without Hitler

On what grounds?

 

[Dachs]

On what grounds?

Well, it was always an element of Weimar Republic foreign policy to redeem Austria and West Prussia/Polish Corridor into a greater German republic. That's why Locarno was agreed to; it created a detente in the West to allow Stresemann and co. to focus their efforts on revanchism in the East.

 

[Sharwood]

On what grounds?

On the grounds that Germany's revanchism was too great to be ignored, even if a guy like Goering, who did not want war, was in charge. Sooner or later, Germany's political and diplomatic manoeuvrings to regain lost territory would have convinced the West to take action, or, more likely, the Soviets would have cut a deal with Germany so that both sides could have a free hand in their respective spheres. Which is what actually happened. Russian revanchism was almost as great as Germany's, after all.

 

[mr_lewington]

i was thinking, if Germany really did win WWII and captures all of Europe, how long would it be before someone revolts? Us Poles could teach you guys how to () then after a while of weakening Germany, Germany would eventually have fallen, to the europeans. I'm predecting in the 50's or early 60's?

A similar scenario to that would be in my opinion the squabbling of power after Hitler's death between Himmler, Bormann and Goering. I can't see them just allowing one of the others to replace Hitler. May not be highly probably but I think it would be worth considering.

 

[CruelDwarf]

Russian revanchism was almost as great as Germany's, after all.

USSR was totally uninterested in any major war in Europe. All followers of idea of international revolution was banished from the party during the Stalin's reign. And USSR follow the policy of "building socialism in one country".

 

[Sharwood]

USSR was totally uninterested in any major war in Europe. All followers of idea of international revolution was banished from the party during the Stalin's reign. And USSR follow the policy of "building socialism in one country".

That's a nice story. But Stalin didn't care about Communism any more than George W. Bush cares about human rights. It's great power politics. Stalin wanted the USSR to grow back to its old Russian Empire borders. He'd gotten rid of Trotsky and his ideals about international revolution because he didn't give a damn about Communist ideology. Hell, none of the Bolsheviks did, or they would have realised that the workers mattered more than the revolution. What Stalin wanted, was power. Communism was a means to an end.

If Stalin was uninterested in territorial expansion, he would not have negotiated a treaty with Germany giving both nations spheres of influence in Eastern Europe. He would not have invaded Finland. He would not have occupied Bessarabia. As I said, Russian revanchism was almost as great as Germany's.

 

[CruelDwarf]

As i say - USSR was don't interested in any major war in Europe. Not in territorial expansion.

Indeed Stalin want to retrieve some territories lost during the collapse of Russian Empire. Just because this territories were vital to security of Soviet Union.

If Stalin was uninterested in territorial expansion, he would not have negotiated a treaty with Germany giving both nations spheres of influence in Eastern Europe.

Stalin can't secure any viable treaty with England and France and was forced to deal with Hitler. What alternatives?

Stalin don't take Eastern Poland? Germany occupied all the Poland. In june of 1941 german panzers starts 150-300 km closer to Moscow.
Stalin don't force Baltic States to the Union? Germany occupies them.
Stalin don't redraw russian-finnish border? Finland enters the war in 1941 and start in perfect position to bombard and surround Leningrad.

All this was a matter of survival of the country during World War, not some sort of evil scheming to conquer the world.

 

[Sharwood]

You're right. Russia was completely uninterested in a major war. So why quote me, and take issue with my statement that Russian revanchism was almost as great as German revanchism? I was responding to your apparent issue with my statement, and your parroting of that Stalinist nonsense of "socialism in one country," not your comment about war. I merely pointed out that Russian revanchism had nothing to do with war.

 

[CruelDwarf]

I merely pointed out that Russian revanchism had nothing to do with war.

Sorry, but i don't take point. If russian revanchism had nothing to do with war, how it may be almost as great as Germany's?

and your parroting of that Stalinist nonsense of "socialism in one country,

Sorry, this is not nonsense, but official policy of the state. You may like it or not, but this is fact.

 

[JohnRM]

Hitler was a product of the Nazi movement, not the other way around.

 

[Agent327]

Hitler was a product of the Nazi movement, not the other way around.

Nope. Hitler took over the leadership of the DAP singlehandedly (his first ever political gamble) and renamed it National-Socialist DAP. (So one might even claim he invented National-Socialism.)

 

[Sharwood]

Sorry, but i don't take point. If russian revanchism had nothing to do with war, how it may be almost as great as Germany's?


Sorry, this is not nonsense, but official policy of the state. You may like it or not, but this is fact.

What the hell does revanchism have to do with war? Germans didn't want war either, it was Hitler and some Nazis who wanted one.

It is nonsense. It was a political ploy to make that statement, ensuring that Stalin gained power, not Trotsky. After that, Stalin relied on Russian nationalism, not socialism. And he was not afraid to utilise Communists for political subversion outside of Russia either, so long as they obeyed his orders, which is why he and Tito never got along.

 

[Yeekim]

As i say - USSR was don't interested in any major war in Europe. Not in territorial expansion.

Indeed Stalin want to retrieve some territories lost during the collapse of Russian Empire. Just because this territories were vital to security of Soviet Union.


Stalin can't secure any viable treaty with England and France and was forced to deal with Hitler. What alternatives?

Stalin don't take Eastern Poland? Germany occupied all the Poland. In june of 1941 german panzers starts 150-300 km closer to Moscow.
Stalin don't force Baltic States to the Union? Germany occupies them.
Stalin don't redraw russian-finnish border? Finland enters the war in 1941 and start in perfect position to bombard and surround Leningrad.

All this was a matter of survival of the country during World War, not some sort of evil scheming to conquer the world.

Oh my God, another Soviet apologist.
1) You are trying to make it look as if at least from 1939 (the moment USSR betrayed Poland and attacked Finland in violation of non-aggression treaty), Stalin had consciously been working to protect USSR against German invasion, as if he had foreseen it. Pray tell me, if this was indeed the case, and it was foreseen two years in advance, why then was USSR taken completely by surprise, as witnessed within first few weeks of plan Barbarossa?
2) So the only possibility to prevent Germany from occupying entire Poland was to strike deal with Germany, stab Poland in its back without declaration of war, cut your own share of it and massacre Polish POW's? What about denouncing German aggression and offering support to Poland?
3) Baltic states had to join the USSR just so Germany wouldn't occupy them?
In 1939, USSR presented Baltic states with ultimatum, demanding military access and establishment of military bases, threatening refusal with war. Baltic states accepted, signing treaties of mutual assistance. As soon as Soviet military had established its bases according to treaties, USSR broke mutual assistance agreements which signing it had demanded, used its military to arrange coups, installed puppet governments and annexed these countries for 50 years to come - as if having full military access was not enough to "protect itself". I take this was also necessary solely to ensure USSR's survival during WW2?
4) As I mentioned above, Finland had non-aggression treaty with USSR. Why would they have attacked Leningrad in 1941, if not for the fact that USSR violated it first in 1939?

All this crap about "ensuring survival without absolutely no interest in territorial expansion" is historical revisionism of the worst kind.

 

[CruelDwarf]

You are trying to make it look as if at least from 1939 (the moment USSR betrayed Poland and attacked Finland in violation of non-aggression treaty), Stalin had consciously been working to protect USSR against German invasion, as if he had foreseen it.

Indeed. How Clemanso say after Verssalies treaty? "We buy peace for twenty years"? Many people thinks in 20-30s that new war is immenent. And after Hitler come to power this is was obvious to almost all.

Pray tell me, if this was indeed the case, and it was foreseen two years in advance, why then was USSR taken completely by surprise, as witnessed within first few weeks of plan Barbarossa?

USSR wasn't taken by surprise. German concentration of forces was discovered in middle of the May of 1941.
But Soviet leaders did several errors:
1. They underestimated speed of german troops deployment. By soviet intelligence germans didn't had troops needed to attack USSR till the end of july. But Wermacht almost complete deployment of its first attack echelons in one week before invasion.
2. They thought than Hitler will put forward some demands (as he did with Poland, for example) and not attacks without trying diplomacy first.
3. Soviet command follow erroneous assumption that war starts with some limited action and that allows USSR to start fully mobilization.
4. Soviet army start it own hidden deployment in end of May, but because of far worse infrastructure troops were deployed with slower speed then their german counterparts.

So the first german strike by 130 divisions in three army groups was faced by 57 divisions undermanned and spread all around the border. Soviets weren't taken by surprise, they were beaten by parts because of some fundamental errors in war planning and preparations.

So the only possibility to prevent Germany from occupying entire Poland was to strike deal with Germany, stab Poland in its back without declaration of war

Red Army enters polish territories in 17 of september. In this time polish army was destroyed, Warsaw surrounded and polish government fled to Romania. Molotov several times try to call polish officials. but all they were "unavailable"

What about denouncing German aggression and offering support to Poland?

And drag USSR into the war with Germany? So England and France may continue to play "sitzkrieg" in german western borders?

And some other point - when USSR offer military support to Czehoslovakia in face of german demands Poland don't allow soviet troops to march through polish territories. Polish prefers to split Czehoslovakia with Nazis. In september of 1939 just was their turn.

Baltic states had to join the USSR just so Germany wouldn't occupy them?

Yep. Fully military and political control was far better then just military control.

4) As I mentioned above, Finland had non-aggression treaty with USSR. Why would they have attacked Leningrad in 1941, if not for the fact that USSR violated it first in 1939?

USSR also had non-agression treaty with Germany. USSR not violated treaty with Finland. USSR denounced it several months beforehand.

Also USSR was attacked by Hungary, Slovakia and Italy. With all this countries USSR never been at war. Finland wasn't any better and USSR had 20 years lenght history of mutual provocations and border clashes with them.

 

[Yeekim]

Red Army enters polish territories in 17 of september. In this time polish army was destroyed, Warsaw surrounded and polish government fled to Romania. Molotov several times try to call polish officials. but all they were "unavailable"

I wonder, if Polish Army was entirely destroyed by that time, how then Soviets managed to take 230 000 Polish soldiers (or even 425 000 according to Meltyukhov) POW? Where did they get 8 000 Polish officers to shoot in Katyn forest (no doubt another unavoidable defensive measure)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland_(1939)

And drag USSR into the war with Germany? So England and France may continue to play "sitzkrieg" in german western borders?

Hardly would Hitler have attacked Poland in the first place, if MRP had not conditioned it...

And some other point - when USSR offer military support to Czehoslovakia in face of german demands Poland don't allow soviet troops to march through polish territories.

Any source to back it up?

Yep. Fully military and political control was far better then just military control.

...and full ethnic cleansing would, no doubt, have been the best. Total control. "It was better for us, thus we had to do it" is great excuse for absolutely anything, is it not?

USSR not violated treaty with Finland. USSR denounced it several months beforehand.

... using as an excuse shelling of their territory they themselves staged. Yeah, there is marked difference. EDIT: Also, according to which calendar does 4 days equal "several months"?

Also USSR was attacked by Hungary, Slovakia and Italy. With all this countries USSR never been at war. Finland wasn't any better and USSR had 20 years lenght history of mutual provocations and border clashes with them.

First nation to even recognize Soviet borders was Estonia in 1921 (yes, I am ashamed). You really want to say Finland initiated any "provocations" or "border clashes" after that? Sure. 3.6 million Finland must have been just desperate to pick a fight with 190 million USSR.

 

[Yeekim]

Also USSR was attacked by Hungary, Slovakia and Italy. With all this countries USSR never been at war.

USSR - no. Russian SFSR - yes. (WW1)

 

[CruelDwarf]

I wonder, if Polish Army was entirely destroyed by that time, how then Soviets managed to take 230 000 Polish soldiers

Because they fled from germans?

Where did they get 8 000 Polish officers to shoot in Katyn forest (no doubt another unavoidable defensive measure)?

Katyn thing?
First - in Katyn forest and nearby were shot less then 2 thousand people.
Second - no evidience exists that this massacre was result of soviet actions and not some sort of german provocation. You tend to believe a story that originates from Goebbels?

Hardly would Hitler have attacked Poland in the first place, if MRP had not conditioned it...

No statements in MRP were "condition" any attacks on Poland. MRP was non-agression pact and secret protocols had divide spheres of influence.

and full ethnic cleansing would, no doubt, have been the best

This is your words, not mine.

Total control. "It was better for us, thus we had to do it" is great excuse for absolutely anything, is it not?

Indeed. All countries do such things when possible. For example - why Great britain military occupied Iceland? Because english need this isle as anti-sub screen against Germany. Why english planned military invasion in Norway? because they want to disrupt german trade with Sweden. Why Britain start the infamous "Catapult" against their ex-ally fleet? What country stay with neat hands during this war?

using as an excuse shelling of their territory they themselves staged. Yeah, there is marked difference.

Sorry, but your forget about almost year-length negotiations.

Also, according to which calendar does 4 days equal "several months"?

My error.

You really want to say Finland initiated any "provocations" or "border clashes" after that? Sure. 3.6 million Finland must have been just desperate to pick a fight with 190 million USSR.

1918, 15 of May. Finland declares war on Soviet Russia. Finnish forces occupied Oloneck region in southern Karelia.
1920, 24 of october. Peace talks between Finland and Soviet Russia.
1921, 6 of november. Large group of finnish voulonteers crossed the border with Soviet Russia to support rebels in Karelia. Fighting lasts till 17 feburary of 1922.

This is the largest incidents.

Russian SFSR - yes. (WW1)

During the WW1 no such states as Hungary or Slovakia exists. And Italy was an ally of Imperial Russia. RSFSR was at war with Austro-Hungary and Germany till Brest-Litovsk treaty.

 

[Yeekim]

Second - no evidience exists that this massacre was result of soviet actions and not some sort of german provocation. You tend to believe a story that originates from Goebbels?

I think that no further discussion is viable at this point. You certainly have shown you are knowledgeable enough, so I can't put that statement on account of simple ignorance.
However, this goes to great lengths to show just HOW far current revisionism in Russia goes. No matter whether you actually believed what you said or not, denial of something that your own leaders have publicly admitted (though never as much as apologized for, never mind put those responsible on trial) and is common knowledge everywhere is symptomatical of oldschool Soviet tradition of historical forgery:

1) Don't ever admit of having done anything wrong.
2) Blame everybody else.
3) Pile up lies. The more audacious the better.

Until that changes, Russia is doomed to go through its mistakes all over again. I am sorry for you.