WI WW2 started with German/USSR Alliance vs France/UK?

terence

Banned
GermanFed..sorry, Eurofed...:p

You seem to be basing a lot on the fact that 'the USA will stay neutral and not declare war just to save Britain'.

I think you are making a couple of mistakes here.

First, every month that goes on with the US supplying war goods to the UK, its another month the US industrial machine is getting on a war footing. They werent giving us all that stuff just for our benefit, there was a lot of self interest there (granted, manilupated by Roosevelt)

Second, the continuing US governments nightmare - germany getting the Royal Navy. On its own, the RN was (just about) able to handle the KM, the MN and the Italians. Added to them, especially if Japan scents blood, then the USA is vulnerable to assault, and the US army doesnt exactly inspire confidence till 1943 at the earliest... The US would probably do just about anything to avoid this happening.

When discussing US thoughts about participation in WW2--its worth reading this TIME magazine article from July 1940. TIME was the voice of the American "Establishment" in those days as far as there was one.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,764198-1,00.html
 

terence

Banned
Well, my entire family on both sides was de-kulakised. One of my ancestors was de-kulakised twice. He'd had enough of the BS and commited suicide as a result. He was the only one. The rest of my family is still living in the same villages they were living in before the revolution.


You need to really look at some real numbers. I'm uncertain about what you mean by both "millions" and "tiny picking".


I doubt the death rates are really comparable.

This seems to have become a debate on who was the baddest boy Stalin or Hitler (Allan Bullock's Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives does it best).

That book was written before the latest evidence of the USSRs casualties under Stalin became available and the figure seems to go up every year.
The latest RUSSIAN figures, excluding the pre-war famines are 8 to 9 million direct casualties excluding Axis POWs and Civilians. The mass deportations of Soviet citizens resulted in a 43% mortality rate and at least 1.5 million executions were carried out.
While I do not want to open up any 'not such bad German' debates. It is often ignored that an enormous number of the deaths/murders/liquidations in German occupied areas were carried out, enthusiastically, by the local populations. Poles killed Jews, Ukrainians and other Poles, Lithuanians killed Poles and Jews, Belorussians and Ukrainians were delighted kill Jews and anyone else who had held authority under the Soviets. The Soviet response was the "Extermination Batallions" that tortured their political opponents before murdering them and-----yes, destroying their houses and farms.
 
Last edited:

ZeusBlade

Banned
Hitler's death toll is far larger then Stalins-11 to 17 million in Holocaust alone, add to that 26 million casualties in Soviet Union and 6 milllion in Poland and you already exceed Stalins number of 20 million or so.
And just in six years. So there is no dispute that Hitler was the bigger killer.

The people who claim "it doesn't matter how you die if you die" are very wrong, that way the massacre of 1,000 Jewish civilians in 1939 Poland by German death squads is lesser evil then death of 4,000 factory workers in Germany 1944 due to Allied bombing. Obviously that is not correct.

Generally what seems to be missing is that Germany led a war to exterminate whole nations based on racist genocidal ideology, around 70100 million Slavs would be eliminated. And we have Roma and Jews as well.
The Soviets fought to control other nations not to exterminate them.
While for example Nazi Germany never accepted Polish state and instead turned occupied territory into one big concentration camp with no education, health facilities and so on, Soviets were willing to create a satellite state, with Polish language, schools, hospitals, transport, Polish factories and labour protection and so on. It's obvious that they were less evil then Nazi Germany and allowed for survival of nations.

The argument about "you had more chance dying in SU then in Nazi Germany" is wrong. In Nazi Germany your chances were based solely on ethnic background. If you were a Jew you had a 99.9 chance of eventually being murdered, while being a German you had a pretty chance of living a good life based on exploitation of other nations.

Nazis would kill a Jewish infant just because he was Jewish infant-in Soviet Union the worst the state would do to you, is to put you into orphanage if your parents were classified as political enemies.
In Nazi Germany if you were a Pole, you considered a creature of lower status then a dog. In Soviet Union you were just a citizen like others, maybe spied more but nobody believed you were an animal for extermination.
The differences that show that the two are not the same in level of killing are obvious-both occupied whole Poland-Nazis killed 6 million Polish citizens, while Soviet made casualties are around 300-400,000.

The Soviets imposed a brutal regime on their own people that killed millions following lunatic and untenable sociopolitical theories, picking victims among scapegoat social classes, national minorities, everyone that could be remotely suspected of harboring a bad opinion of the regime, and at good amount of random victims picked to terrorize the others into abject obedience. The Nazis pretty much left the bulk of their own people alone, if in a brutal police state, and killed millions following lunatic and untenable racial theories, picking victims among scapegoats minorities and foreign nationalities, part in order to wipe them our for their loony colonization projects, part in order to terrorize the others into abject obedience
You forgot about the whole "let's kill all the Jews and 70 to 100 million Slavs, because they are untermensch creatures" thing in Nazi Germany

And the claim "The Nazis pretty much left the bulk of their own people alone" is clear revisionism. Most of the people under Nazi rule were opressed as untermenschen, unless you are trying to claim Nazi occupied Poland, Russia, Ukraine, was not under their rule but somebody's else.

As a Pole I would never want to live under Nazi rule, hunted down as subhuman. I lived under Soviet rule, and I don't recall being treated in racist way, being sent to concentration camp, or my whole family murdered. Sure there was propaganda, poverty and economic corruption, but it preferable to death from the Nazis.
 
Last edited:

Makty

Banned
How can such idiocy be tolerated on this forum? There's absolutely no historical fact in that guy's post!


Hitler's death toll is far larger then Stalins-11 to 17 million in Holocaust alone


Whhh...... What? Estimations of the Jewish population of the entire European continent never surpassed 8 million and somehow Hitler killed 11-17 million Jews? Are you stupid?

add to that 26 million casualties in Soviet Union and 6 milllion in Poland and you already exceed Stalins number of 20 million or so.
And just in six years. So there is no dispute that Hitler was the bigger killer.
Ruhrrr what? Those numbers are completely off. There was nowhere close to being 32 million casualities in the Polish Campaign and Barbarossa. Even when adding civilian casualities your numbers still don't make sense. Are you a sort of drooling buffon?


The people who claim "it doesn't matter how you die if you die" are very wrong, that way the massacre of 1,000 Jewish civilians in 1939 Poland by German death squads is lesser evil then death of 4,000 factory workers in Germany 1944 due to Allied bombing. Obviously that is not correct.
What are you stating? The life of a Goy is worth less than a Jew? That could be construed as racist...

Generally what seems to be missing is that Germany led a war to exterminate whole nations based on racist genocidal ideology, around 70100 million Slavs would be eliminated. And we have Roma and Jews as well.
70 billion Slavs would be eliminated? I never knew that so many existed... :p


The Soviets fought to control other nations not to exterminate them.
While for example Nazi Germany never accepted Polish state and instead turned occupied territory into one big concentration camp with no education, health facilities and so on, Soviets were willing to create a satellite state, with Polish language, schools, hospitals, transport, Polish factories and labour protection and so on. It's obvious that they were less evil then Nazi Germany and allowed for survival of nations.
:confused:




"The Nazis pretty much left the bulk of their own people alone" is clear revisionism.
No. I'm afraid your post is revisionary and rather painful to read at best.

The plan was never extermination but ethnic clensing. If I am a White Male living in Brooklyn and my Black Neighbors force me to leave, than I can state that I have been "ethnically clensed from Brooklyn", but that does not mean I have been exterminated / killed.


And by the way, I am neither German nor a Germanphile, in fact I am an ''Untermensch'' or a Slav.


Regardless... The Germans never planned to carry out a complete genocide and the proof is seen in surviving documents of GPO (Generalplan Ost).
GPO envisioned the Germanization of about 30% of Slavs and most of the remainder was supposed to be explused to the Urals.


I have my doubts that you have even read a Wikipedia summary of the Second World War, let alone a legitimate historical document pertaining to the Second World War.
 

ZeusBlade

Banned
.. What? Estimations of the Jewish population of the entire European continent never surpassed 8 million and somehow Hitler killed 11-17 million Jews? Are you stupid?
You might want to acknowledge yourself with the fact that Holocaust term is not restricted to Jews by some.

Those numbers are completely off. There was nowhere close to being 32 million casualities in the Polish Campaign and Barbarossa.
Soviet civilian casualties are around 23 million. Polish ones around 6 million. That's already 29 million dead, not including military casualties.
70 billion Slavs would be eliminated? I never knew that so many existed...
You might want to read that again-70 to 100 million.
The Germans never planned to carry out a complete genocide
In 1941 it was decided to destroy thePolish nationcompletely and the German leadership decided that in 10 to 20 years the Polish state under German occupation was to be fully cleared of any ethnic Poles and settled by Germans.

GPO envisioned the Germanization of about 30% of Slavs
GPO didn't treat Slavs as unified group, the quotes for re-germanization were different according to national group. Those were not Slavs in the view of Germans btw, but people of German ethnic origin who were to be restored to their nation.
and most of the remainder was supposed to be explused to the Urals
Jews in official documents were to be "deported" as well. It's common Nazi euphemism for mass murder. Regardless we know how Germans acted and that the extermination operations began as early as 1939.
 
Sounds like someone is full of shit
Firstly, do you know how incredibly rude your coming across as?

Secondly, how is claiming that the holocaust extended beyond the jews 'full of shit'? As far as I was aware gypsies, jehovas witnesses, homosexuals etc. were also murdered on a similar scale, or is the gypsy camp at Auschwitz a myth as well?


Also, regardless of whether Hitler killed more or less people (and I tend to think less, although had he won the war, it would have been more), the Nazis were simply the nastier of the two regimes.

On second thoughts, reported.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Also, regardless of whether Hitler killed more or less people (and I tend to think less, although had he won the war, it would have been more), the Nazis were simply the nastier of the two regimes.

As me and others said previously, judging from future intentions is unwise since we cannot ever know for certain whether Nazi Germany would have been able to implement GPO in full (the economic and military burden of killing or deporting tens of millions of Slavs is certainly mind-boggling), or whether such plans would have been dropped after the near-certain demise of Hitler soon after 1945 and the likely takeover of a more pragmatic successor.

And if we have to judge by intentions, we have equally to take into account that Stalin wholly planned to unleash a new cycle of purges as wide-ranging as the 1930s ones in Soviet Union and the Eastern European vassal states alike (apparently including Jews as well, since he had swung towards anti-semitism towards the end when he died). If he had managed to conquer Western Europe as he wanted, and he therefore got a completely free hand in Europe, free from American interference, it is reasonable to expect that he had been much more brutal in implementing Sovietization, and with all of Europe as a Stalinist playground, the body count of Pan-European purges would have easily rivaled the one of GPO (especially because the latter never planned to kill all European Slavs: a sizable percentage of each ethnic groups, IIRC about 50% of Czechs, 30-35% of Ukrainians, 20-25% of Belrausians, was earmaked for Germanization; and those were the numbers under loony Hitler, we may expect them to be hugely boosted under a more pragmatic successor).

Therefore, judging from intentions is less clear-cut than you may think.

And you claim that Nazism was the "nastier of the two regimes regardless of body count" seems frankly laughable. According to what criteria ? Imperialistic willingness to conquer ? Apart from the fact that a long row of rulers shared it besides Hitler and Stalin, Josif was simply a bit more cautious than Adolf about it, but the goals were the same.

Motivation for killing ? Well, dead is dead, killing someone because he belongs to scapegoat ethnic minority that is deemed a threat to civilization, does not seem any more or less insane and nasty to me than killing someone because he belongs to scapegoat social class that is deemed a threat to civilization, or because he's a random citizen that the rampant paranoia of the regime earmarks it as potentially hostile because of some meaningless clue.

And as it concerns reporting, I agree that stooping down to insults into a discussion is wrong, but Zeusblade's rethoric seems to me suspiciously akin to the one of Hurganpuppets, and gods know how much I've felt the urge to insult Hurgan in my day, his complete disregard and distortion of reality to feed his outrageous Pole-supremacist conspiracy-theory claims is maddening and enraging enough.
 

Makty

Banned
This.
It saddens me when someone states that "Eastern Europe should be thankful they never had Hitler in charge". But I can state that we did have a Hitler in charge, except he wasn't German but Georgian and his name was Joseph Jughashvili (Stalin).


As me and others said previously, judging from future intentions is unwise since we cannot ever know for certain whether Nazi Germany would have been able to implement GPO in full (the economic and military burden of killing or deporting tens of millions of Slavs is certainly mind-boggling), or whether such plans would have been dropped after the near-certain demise of Hitler soon after 1945 and the likely takeover of a more pragmatic successor.

Hitler was largely out of the loop. In the remaining months of the war, Hitler was furious to learn the existence of Slavic units and ordered their dismantlement and weapons to be given to German units.

True, Hitler did authorize the creation of a SS "Galizien" Division, but only because Wächter and Himmler kind of lied to Hitler and claimed that the men recruited were Volksdeustche and Ruthenian-Austrians.



And if we have to judge by intentions, we have equally to take into account that Stalin wholly planned to unleash a new cycle of purges as wide-ranging as the 1930s ones in Soviet Union and the Eastern European vassal states alike (apparently including Jews as well, since he had swung towards anti-semitism towards the end when he died). If he had managed to conquer Western Europe as he wanted, and he therefore got a completely free hand in Europe, free from American interference, it is reasonable to expect that he had been much more brutal in implementing Sovietization, and with all of Europe as a Stalinist playground, the body count of Pan-European purges would have easily rivaled the one of GPO (especially because the latter never planned to kill all European Slavs: a sizable percentage of each ethnic groups, IIRC about 50% of Czechs, 30-35% of Ukrainians, 20-25% of Belrausians, was earmaked for Germanization; and those were the numbers under loony Hitler, we may expect them to be hugely boosted under a more pragmatic successor).
This.
Germanization was no different than this construction to create a Soviet People.

So what? If my relatives were forced to had become "Volksdeustche", as opposed to "Soviet People"?

So what? If my relatives were forced to learn German as opposed to Russian?

What difference does it really make? Not much to me, although I suspect in the Hitler case at least my relatives would have freedom of religion and a better economic livelihood.
And no, I don't think they would had been "shot and exterminated", as my Great Uncle's position in the Nachtigall and then the Auxillaries (Major) would had prevented such a scenario.
 

ZeusBlade

Banned
As me and others said previously, judging from future intentions is unwise since we cannot ever know for certain whether Nazi Germany would have been able to implement GPO in full (the economic and military burden of killing or deporting tens of millions of Slavs is certainly mind-boggling), or whether such plans would have been dropped after the near-certain demise of Hitler soon after 1945 and the likely takeover of a more pragmatic successor.
This doesn't change the fact that Jewish or Polish infant would be murdered in Nazi Germany deliberetly-and it already happened in OTL in places like Auschwitz.
Soviets hardly did such things-they would put a child into orphanage or to other parents.
A clear case of lesser evil.

Your assertion that magically Hitler dies in 1945, and magically Germans turn nice after 1945 is just a fantasy and can't be taken seriously.
As to killing millions-the problem was already solved by Hunger Plan, and Germans quite easily murdered 6 million Poles in 6 years and 23 million Soviet citizens in 4 years. How many more would they murder given even 5 years more ?
And you claim that Nazism was the "nastier of the two regimes regardless of body count" seems frankly laughable. According to what criteria ? Imperialistic willingness to conquer ? Apart from the fact that a long row of rulers shared it besides Hitler and Stalin, Josif was simply a bit more cautious than Adolf about it, but the goals were the same.
Why do Poles, Jews live then if Stalin as Hitler wanted to exterminate them. Really your claim is absurd. Unlike Hitler Stalin didn't want to extermiante Polish nation or Jewish one.

The body count of Pan-European purges would have easily rivaled the one of GPO
Really ? Give calculation and sources based on something other then your fantasy.


Motivation for killing ? Well, dead is dead,
So Jews murdered in concentration camps are equall to German soldiers that died on Eastern Front ? Yeah right. It's obvious revisionism.


Germanization was no different than this construction to create a Soviet People.
What an astonishing demonstration of historic ignorance. Germanization was based on racial tests and concerned a small minority of those concerned suitable racially. Everybody could be a Soviet person, and for a long time the various nationalities in Soviet union enjoyed a considerable national autonomy and cultural rights undreamed in Nazi Germany for Jews or Poles.

Not much to me, although I suspect in the Hitler case at least my relatives would have freedom of religion and a better economic livelihood.
And no, I don't think they would had been "shot and exterminated", as my Great Uncle's position in the Nachtigall and Auxillaries (Major) would had prevented such a scenario.
It's clear then where from your position comes. I guess you don't care about 100 million or so untermenschen with less rights then dogs, that would be exterminated.


And as it concerns reporting, I agree that stooping down to insults into a discussion is wrong, but Zeusblade's rethoric seems to me suspiciously akin to the one of Hurganpuppets, and gods know how much I've felt the urge to insult Hurgan in my day, his complete disregard and distortion of reality to feed his outrageous Pole-supremacist conspiracy-theory claims is maddening and enraging enough.
At least he is not a Nazi apologist.

Bottom line-neither Jews nor Poles, nor Roma were treated as untermenschen under Soviets, they were not nations to be exterminated, their children would not be murdered just because they were "inferior race". Really, trying to deny that Soviets were not as evil as Germans requires serious ideological stubborness.
 
Last edited:

Makty

Banned
What an astonishing demonstration of historic ignorance. Germanization was based on racial tests and concerned a small minority of those concerned suitable racially.

Ironically,
did the Soviet Union not have its own tests of sorts? You had to possess a compatible political and economic belief. Otherwise it was a one-way ticket to the Gulag.
And Stalin never allowed Soviet POWs or the Cossacks to become Soviet Citizens (see Betrayal of Cossacks)


Everybody could be a Soviet person, and for a long time the various nationalities in Soviet union enjoyed a considerable national autonomy and cultural rights undreamed in Nazi Germany for Jews or Poles.
I believe those in Belarus, Ukraine and the Baltic Republics would claim otherwise.

It's clear then where from your position comes. I guess you don't care about 100 million or so untermenschen with less rights then dogs, that would be exterminated.
How is this different than how Solzhenitsyn claims the Soviet Union killed 80 million Slavs?
Answer me. But I fear you will not. You refuse to accept that Stalin was just as bad, if not worse than Hitler.


Hitler wanted to Germanize us. Stalin wanted to destroy "Bourgeois Nationalism" (Slavic Culture) and turn us into Soviet People.

No difference between the two. But at least Hitler promised freedom of religion and economic livelihood (at least those who Germanized. Than again I can't help but point out the similarity with those who joined the party in the Soviet Union and the benefits they received).


But as Euro stated, Hitler would had passed away in the 1950s and his successors would had been more pragmatic and realistic. Germanisation on the onset would had been abandoned in favor of rehabilitating and creating friendly states in Eastern Europe.
On the plus side, at least we wouldn't have to wait 10 years to get a crappy Zaporozhet, instead we wait five years to get a more efficient volkswagon :p
 
Last edited:
Top