The Eden-Dirksen Pact: A Deal With the Devil?

Deleted member 94680

Churchill - a fervent anti-Communist in his time - famously said "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons" when it came to defending British aid to Soviet Russia.

But what if the situation were reversed? Many in the British establishment for most of the inter-War period saw Russia as the greatest threat. Anglo-German rapprochement and talks at various levels happened for most of the thirties and if anything accelerated with the Nazis in power. Joachim von Ribbentrop was not a very successful Nazi ambassador to Great Britain and did more damage than good to relations. His replacement, Herbert von Dirksen was more successful, being seen as a "man of ability" and the 'right kind of person' for the Court of St James.

What chance of a slight difference in Nazi foreign policy producing an Anglo-Nazi Pact sometime after the Anschluss but before the annexation of Czecho-Slovakia? Say Britain giving Germany a free hand in the East - respecting Poland - whilst leaving Sudeten-less Czecho-Slovakia independent and France unmolested? The British could feel safe in the knowledge that Stalin's Russia - responsible for anywhere up to 7 million deaths in the famines of '32-'33 for instance - could be corralled and maybe even neutralised by what they saw (at the time) as a Right-Wing Dictatorship no different to Spain, Hungary or even Poland.

After the War, a Nazi Germany that had defeated Soviet Russia (probably?) would enter into a Cold War like the USSR did OTL. But would a Nazi State fall quicker compared to the USSR?


Would it be worth it?
 
I think that this would only be possible if the Trotsky faction took control of the USSR rather than Stalin. Stalin largely looked inward while Trotsky was very much in favor of aggressively expanding the revolution (much as Hitler wanted breathing space). Perhaps something of what you suggest would happen if the British viewed the USSR as fomenting aggressive international socialism, especially in places like the Middle East or India or Africa
No, just no. Trotsky was no maniac wanting to invade other countries. In 1920 he even was one of the more cautious Communists when it came to the Soviet-Polish war. He wanted to strengthen the Comintern and don't do alliances with Fascist states as Stalin did. That doesn't mean that he would go Red Alert on europe sometime in the 1930's.

Churchill - a fervent anti-Communist in his time - famously said "If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons" when it came to defending British aid to Soviet Russia.

But what if the situation were reversed? Many in the British establishment for most of the inter-War period saw Russia as the greatest threat. Anglo-German rapprochement and talks at various levels happened for most of the thirties and if anything accelerated with the Nazis in power. Joachim von Ribbentrop was not a very successful Nazi ambassador to Great Britain and did more damage than good to relations. His replacement, Herbert von Dirksen was more successful, being seen as a "man of ability" and the 'right kind of person' for the Court of St James.

What chance of a slight difference in Nazi foreign policy producing an Anglo-Nazi Pact sometime after the Anschluss but before the annexation of Czecho-Slovakia? Say Britain giving Germany a free hand in the East - respecting Poland - whilst leaving Sudeten-less Czecho-Slovakia independent and France unmolested? The British could feel safe in the knowledge that Stalin's Russia - responsible for anywhere up to 7 million deaths in the famines of '32-'33 for instance - could be corralled and maybe even neutralised by what they saw (at the time) as a Right-Wing Dictatorship no different to Spain, Hungary or even Poland.

After the War, a Nazi Germany that had defeated Soviet Russia (probably?) would enter into a Cold War like the USSR did OTL. But would a Nazi State fall quicker compared to the USSR?


Would it be worth it?
Ask yourself: Would the subjugation of Eastern Europe under a genocidal empire that rules to the Ural "worth it" so just that you can stick the finger to the Reds?

And we shouldn't kid ourselves: The Nazis wouldn't enter a "Cold War" like the USSR. They were pretty keen on "war as the standard scenario of humanity"-thought. Every ceasefire, every treaty would just be used to rearm and then attack again. The only Britain Hitler would tolerate is a Britain that is under his boot.
 

Deleted member 94680

I think that this would only be possible if the Trotsky faction took control of the USSR rather than Stalin. Stalin largely looked inward while Trotsky was very much in favor of aggressively expanding the revolution (much as Hitler wanted breathing space). Perhaps something of what you suggest would happen if the British viewed the USSR as fomenting aggressive international socialism, especially in places like the Middle East or India or Africa
I don't know if this is strictly true. Look at the 'influence' Stalin's Communist Party exerted on European countries and his behaviour post-WWII. He may have been fairly inward-looking prior to the War, but that was only because he was biding his time.

Ask yourself: Would the subjugation of Eastern Europe under a genocidal empire that rules to the Ural "worth it" so just that you can stick the finger to the Reds?
It's not "sticking the finger" to the Reds, it's ending the Soviet Empire and preventing as many of the 20 million deaths that Stalinist Russia caused as possible. We justify allying with Stalin by pointing to the defeat of Hitler. But how much better was Stalin with the Holomodor, the Gulag, the show trials, the forced relocation of millions and the famine of '46-'47?
And we shouldn't kid ourselves: The Nazis wouldn't enter a "Cold War" like the USSR. They were pretty keen on "war as the standard scenario of humanity"-thought. Every ceasefire, every treaty would just be used to rearm and then attack again. The only Britain Hitler would tolerate is a Britain that is under his boot.
Probably not willingly, but just the same as Stalin was forced to accept the reality of a West-East split, the Nazis could be stymied as well. The Nazi regime and economy (with it's kleptocracy, MEFO bills, the fuhrerprinzip, backbiting and fiefbuilding) would not last as long as the USSR did OTL. Gaining a Generalplan Ost Empire is one thing, making it last is entirely different.
 
It's not "sticking the finger" to the Reds, it's ending the Soviet Empire and preventing as many of the 20 million deaths that Stalinist Russia caused as possible. We justify allying with Stalin by pointing to the defeat of Hitler. But how much better was Stalin with the Holomodor, the Gulag, the show trials, the forced relocation of millions and the famine of '46-'47?
First of all: The famine of 1932/1933, as horrible and disastrous as it was, is in no way comparable to the "Hungerplan Ost" and the Holocaust. Just because something is bad doesn't mean things can't be worse.
Probably not willingly, but just the same as Stalin was forced to accept the reality of a West-East split, the Nazis could be stymied as well. The Nazi regime and economy (with it's kleptocracy, MEFO bills, the fuhrerprinzip, backbiting and fiefbuilding) would not last as long as the USSR did OTL.
You ignore the big picture: In communist thought, the "world revolution" isn't something that needs to be exported into other countries. It just happens over the time because the contradictions of capitalism lead to the inevitable big clash between the workers & the capitalists. Stalin and others after him could accept the East-West-split in general, because the only thing that they needed to do according to their thought was to strengthen the USSR so that the US doesn't get some second thoughts about attacking.

National Socialist thought on the other hand can't comprehend "peace": It views history as the struggle between "strong" and "weak" nations, the first one slaughtering/exterminating the second ones. It will never accept peace, simply because it understands peace just as a temporary truce.
Gaining a Generalplan Ost Empire is one thing, making it last is entirely different.
So, how many more dead eastern Europeans are acceptable to you? The Nazis in Calbear's timeline don't survive until the 1960's, yet the consequences are so horrible that you probably wouldn't want to live in that world.
 
I could see an alliance with a more generic right-wing revanchists Germany but not with an OTL Nazi one. The Nazi regime was just too unstable, irrational and violent to ally with.
 

Deleted member 94680

First of all: The famine of 1932/1933, as horrible and disastrous as it was, is in no way comparable to the "Hungerplan Ost" and the Holocaust. Just because something is bad doesn't mean things can't be worse.
The famine of 32/33 happened. Hungerplan Ost didn't. Would it happen in the proposed TL with the nazi regime being as ramshackle as it was?
You ignore the big picture: In communist thought, the "world revolution" isn't something that needs to be exported into other countries. It just happens over the time because the contradictions of capitalism lead to the inevitable big clash between the workers & the capitalists. Stalin and others after him could accept the East-West-split in general, because the only thing that they needed to do according to their thought was to strengthen the USSR so that the US doesn't get some second thoughts about attacking.
So the Cold War, the repression of Eastern Europe the various proxy Wars were Stalin and co "accepting" the East-West split?
National Socialist thought on the other hand can't comprehend "peace": It views history as the struggle between "strong" and "weak" nations, the first one slaughtering/exterminating the second ones. It will never accept peace, simply because it understands peace just as a temporary truce.
They wouldn't accept peace voluntarily.
So, how many more dead eastern Europeans are acceptable to you? The Nazis in Calbear's timeline don't survive until the 1960's, yet the consequences are so horrible that you probably wouldn't want to live in that world.
Calbear's TL is just that - a TL. No more dead Eastern Europeans are acceptable to me - don't twist what I'm saying. But if an Anglo-Nazi agreement mean 'only' 15 million die, is that better than the Holocaust and the rest of the OTL Nazi death count combined with Stalin's 20 million? Would a Nazi Europe collapse sooner than a Soviet one and would it's remains be better than the world we have today?
 
The famine of 32/33 happened. Hungerplan Ost didn't. Would it happen in the proposed TL with the nazi regime being as ramshackle as it was?
The death camps run until the surrender in 1945. Why shouldn't they in your proposed scenario?
So the Cold War, the repression of Eastern Europe the various proxy Wars were Stalin and co "accepting" the East-West split?
The "Cold War" was after all a cold war because the USSR didn't go Red Alert on europe. And what does the repression of eastern Europe has to do with this? I mentioned that the USSR tried to ensure it's position, so of course it would repress anything that dared to challenge this "security".
They wouldn't accept peace voluntarily.
Ok, so what does the UK do? Drop nukes on Germany and then calls it a quit?
Calbear's TL is just that - a TL.
Albeit a very good researched TL in which the Nazis don't wake up and become Notzis.
But if an Anglo-Nazi agreement mean 'only' 15 million die, is that better than the Holocaust and the rest of the OTL Nazi death count combined with Stalin's 20 million?
How do you think that Generalplan Ost would have been better for eastern Europe than OTL? I mean, the Warsaw Pact certainly was not heaven on earth (far from it), but at least the USSR didn't engage in genocide against the Warsaw Pact members with the goal of depopulation.
Would a Nazi Europe collapse sooner than a Soviet one and would it's remains be better than the world we have today?
Again: The Warsaw Pact states didn't engage in industrial genocide. Almost anything on earth is better than industrial genocide. Also the Warsaw Pact collapsed quiet peacefully, the Nazis would only surrender after they set europe on fire.
 

Deleted member 94680

The death camps run until the surrender in 1945. Why shouldn't they in your proposed scenario?
They will. What I'm trying to ask is would it be a lower death count than Stalin's?
The "Cold War" was after all a cold war because the USSR didn't go Red Alert on Europe. And what does the repression of eastern Europe has to do with this? I mentioned that the USSR tried to ensure it's position, so of course it would repress anything that dared to challenge this "security".
The repression of Europe meant people died and it wasn't all peace and light.
Ok, so what does the UK do? Drop nukes on Germany and then calls it a quit?
Economic blockade? Espionage? Sponsor insurrection? Pretty similar to the Western Powers in OTL during the Cold War.
Albeit a very good researched TL in which the Nazis don't wake up and become Notzis.
I'm not suggesting Notzis, I'm suggesting that it wouldn't last as long as Calbear suggests due to a collapse of the regime.
How do you think that Generalplan Ost would have been better for eastern Europe than OTL? I mean, the Warsaw Pact certainly was not heaven on earth (far from it), but at least the USSR didn't engage in genocide against the Warsaw Pact members with the goal of depopulation.
Because - again - I was asking if it wouldn't last as long as the USSR and not achieve all that the Nazis planned for it to achieve.
Again: The Warsaw Pact states didn't engage in industrial genocide. Almost anything on earth is better than industrial genocide. Also the Warsaw Pact collapsed quiet peacefully, the Nazis would only surrender after they set Europe on fire.
Many in Ukraine, Kuban or the Central Asian steppes would argue they did engage in genocide. Again, 20 million dead is not something to ignore, yet we seemingly do.
 
They will. What I'm trying to ask is would it be a lower death count than Stalin's?
The death camp in Ausschwitz was planned and built in 1941. Up until it's liberation by the Red Army, it killed up to 1.5 million people. That's 1.5 million deaths in 3 1/2 years. So yes, the death count of Hitler was higher by year.
The repression of Europe meant people died and it wasn't all peace and light.
You seriously want to compare the enslavement and mass murder of people to the repression?
Economic blockade? Espionage? Sponsor insurrection? Pretty similar to the Western Powers in OTL during the Cold War.
No, why do the Nazis accept peace and don't turn on the UK the second they finished the USSR? Are those Notzis?
I'm not suggesting Notzis, I'm suggesting that it wouldn't last as long as Calbear suggests due to a collapse of the regime.
You are suggesting Notzis because you suggest that they wouldn't enslave and murder millions of people.
Because - again - I was asking if it wouldn't last as long as the USSR and not achieve all that the Nazis planned for it to achieve.
After the death of Stalin the USSR didn't engage in mass murder. In contrast the standards of living rose. That wouldn't have been possible for a eastern europe enslaved by the Nazis.
Many in Ukraine, Kuban or the Central Asian steppes would argue they did engage in genocide. Again, 20 million dead is not something to ignore, yet we seemingly do.
I don't know where you pulled out the "20 million dead" figure, but even if we go ahead with it: The enslavement and mass murder of eastern europe in OTL costed 18 million soviet civilians (!) their lives. In 4 years.
 
"Would Hitler kill less eastern Europeans then Stalin" is either a maliciously ignorant, or a ignorantly malicious question. I know we have a contigent of people who think Hitler is overvilified, the soviets undervilified, and the British unjustly not recognized as saints, but this is...wow.
 

Deleted member 94680

The death camp in Ausschwitz was planned and built in 1941. Up until it's liberation by the Red Army, it killed up to 1.5 million people. That's 1.5 million deaths in 3 1/2 years. So yes, the death count of Hitler was higher by year.
Fair enough.
You seriously want to compare the enslavement and mass murder of people to the repression?
No, I want to point out the Soviets continually killed their own people after the War as the Nazis would do.
No, why do the Nazis accept peace and don't turn on the UK the second they finished the USSR? Are those Notzis?
Because they would be exhausted by said war as their economy was trash.
You are suggesting Notzis because you suggest that they wouldn't enslave and murder millions of people.
No, I’m suggesting their murder and enslavement wouldn’t last as long.
After the death of Stalin the USSR didn't engage in mass murder. In contrast the standards of living rose. That wouldn't have been possible for a eastern europe enslaved by the Nazis.
And I’m arguing that Nazi Eastern Europe wouldn’t last as long as the Soviet one.
I don't know where you pulled out the "20 million dead" figure, but even if we go ahead with it: The enslavement and mass murder of eastern europe in OTL costed 18 million soviet civilians (!) their lives. In 4 years.
After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives was declassified and researchers were allowed to study it. This contained official records of 799,455 executions (1921–1953), around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulag, some 390,000 deaths during the dekulakization forced resettlement and up to 400,000 deaths of persons deported during the 1940s, with a total of about 3.3 million officially recorded victims in these categories. The deaths of at least 5.5 to 6.5 million persons in the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 are sometimes, but not always, included with the victims of the Stalin era.”
 
Would it be worth it?
Short answer: no.
Long answer: Hell, no.

They will. What I'm trying to ask is would it be a lower death count than Stalin's?
No. The Nazi's were on a mission to esterminate the jews and the slavs. Once they got it rolling, they killed 6 million jews in the concentrationcamps and assorted other minority groups and russian POWs, estimates range up to 6 million of them. If they had won the war in the east, they were going to continue with this. So that's about 12 million, in basically 4 years. Imagine the deathtoll if it had been 20 years, or maybe even 50.
 
The famine of 32/33 happened. Hungerplan Ost didn't. Would it happen in the proposed TL with the nazi regime being as ramshackle as it was?
in 1945, when Germany was virtually a rubble-field, when oil was nearly non-existent, with the world's largest armies bearing down on a daily basis, and utter defeat an unavoidable outcome.... the Holocaust went on at a ferocious, determined rate.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 94680

"Would Hitler kill less eastern Europeans then Stalin" is either a maliciously ignorant, or a ignorantly malicious question. I know we have a contigent of people who think Hitler is overvilified, the soviets undervilified, and the British unjustly not recognized as saints, but this is...wow.
Malicious? How so? I’m not proposing to do what the Nazis did. OTL we chose to ally with the Stalinist Soviet state against the Nazis. We turned a blind eye to their genocides and mass murders due to the exigencies of the situation we found ourselves in after Munich. The British establishment either didn’t know or didn’t care what Stalin was doing as we needed his assistance. The end result was the defeat of the Nazis (A Good Thing) and the enshrinement of the Soviet Empire and the Cold War (A Bad Thing). The death toll of our alliance with Stalin can be said to be the 15 or so million people his policies killed. What I’m asking is, given a slightly different set of circumstances, given what the British knew at the time, would it have been better to ally with the Nazis to stop the Soviets? You can argue it’s not because the Nazis were, well, Nazis and that’s a fair point. But the Soviets were no angels either. This is in part inspired by the WAllied Bombing Campaign thread. Which horrific choice is a better choice to make? Would a victorious Nazi empire last as long as the Soviet one? I, for one, do not think it would. Can we say the morality of Soviets murdering millions for ideological reasons is better than the Nazis murdering millions for racial ones? When we benefit from using those murderous empires, can we say for sure which one is better?
 
No, I want to point out the Soviets continually killed their own people after the War as the Nazis would do.
The Soviets didn't "kill their own people". They repressed it, yes. But they didn't engage in democide, at least after Stalin.
Because they would be exhausted by said war as their economy was trash.
The Nazis run the death camps up until the final day of surrender. Germany was in ashes, people became refugees, but the death camps still worked. For god's sake, they diverted war ressources so that the death camps could run.
No, I’m suggesting their murder and enslavement wouldn’t last as long.
And I’m arguing that Nazi Eastern Europe wouldn’t last as long as the Soviet one.
Which is no argument here because the few year they lasted IOTL were devastating enough. Prolonging it will only set the world record higher.
After the Soviet Union dissolved, evidence from the Soviet archives was declassified and researchers were allowed to study it. This contained official records of 799,455 executions (1921–1953), around 1.7 million deaths in the Gulag, some 390,000 deaths during the dekulakization forced resettlement and up to 400,000 deaths of persons deported during the 1940s, with a total of about 3.3 million officially recorded victims in these categories. The deaths of at least 5.5 to 6.5 million persons in the Soviet famine of 1932–1933 are sometimes, but not always, included with the victims of the Stalin era.”
So, I used the calculator to be really sure about this: I also rounded up and used the bigger number when in question. This makes 10 million deaths for the Stalin era, which is horrendous. But not anywhere close where the Nazis got IOTL or where they planned to get. And after 1953 the purges stopped, the Gulag system was changed and the last famine was shortly after World War II (and probably a by-product of it).
 

brooklyn99

Banned
I know we have a contigent of people who think Hitler is overvilified, the soviets undervilified, and the British unjustly not recognized as saints
Well you can count me in that second catergory. The amount of apologetics for the evil empire that I have witnessed on the internet makes me firmly convinced that it's a far more problematic and prevalent plague than say, Wehrabooism. As for the topic at hand...

The question is, would the British political establishment really have the tolerance to accept German expansionism, at least past that of the ethnically Germanic territories? Because I would surely think that they would be more than a bit uneasy about condoning any move for Hitler enact his empire-building in East Europe, considering that British policy for a long while was to be opposed to a European power establishing a clear, possibly threatening hegemony on the continent, especially as from the British perspective, a major goal for WW1 was to prevent the Germans from doing just that.
 

Deleted member 94680

The Nazis run the death camps up until the final day of surrender. Germany was in ashes, people became refugees, but the death camps still worked. For god's sake, they diverted war ressources so that the death camps could run.
That’s a good point. Any year the nazis survive beyond OTL (assuming a broadly similar course up until that point given - as you’ve pointed out - the genocide was controlled separately from the military activity) would be a further year of mass murder, accelerating in rate. Although, OTL, the acceleration of the murder was due to the declining War situation IIRC.
Which is no argument here because the few year they lasted IOTL were devastating enough. Prolonging it will only set the world record higher.
True.


Also, it would seem there’s just too much debate over the death toll of the Soviet years (Stalin and beyond, as his victory in WWII bore out what followed) to be sure of the ‘balance’ between the Soviets and the Nazis. Reading that wiki article, you have people claiming 100 million over the course of communism (which an argument can be made all derive from Russia, regardless of the country it happened in, owing to the USSR’s support of communist regimes) and others saying it’s only the gulags and showtrials that should be counted and even the famines shouldn’t be listed as Soviet responsibility.

It would seem we made the right choice OTL.
 

Deleted member 94680

The question is, would the British political establishment really have the tolerance to accept German expansionism, at least past that of the ethnically Germanic territories?
OTL it seemed it was seriously contemplated by at least some in the British establishment, provided the German expansion was ‘channeled’ in the ‘correct’ direction, i.e. towards the East and Russia.
Because I would surely think that they would be more than a bit uneasy about condoning any move for Hitler enact his empire-building in East Europe, considering that British policy for a long while was to be opposed to a European power establishing a clear, possibly threatening hegemony on the continent, especially as from the British perspective, a major goal for WW1 was to prevent the Germans from doing just that.
It would seem the aftermath of WWI had changed that viewpoint somewhat, but more than enough proponents of it survived to see the course we took OTL to be the one that was followed. I also don’t know how much the view of the Nazis as not as competent as say Wilhelmine Germany, or an expansionist USSR, or even a renewed France coloured the view of those that seemed ok with the idea of German expansion.
 
Top