Okay history nerds, explain something to me

okay history nerds, explain something to me

>molotov-Ribbentrop pact
>USSR and Nazi germany agree to a none agression pact, and to slice up eastern europe into spheres of influence, and on the condition that they cant help the sides they might fight (ex. Russia cant supply western Poland, and Germany cant supply estonia)
>invade Poland and everything is fine
>but now Germany has to face France and England in the west
>Russia knows Germany is in a bad situation and tries to use it to their advantage
>???russia demands a bunch of unrealistic things from germany, believing they have them by the balls???
>Germany says fuck that and invades them

So is this what happened? And if so, what were the demands Stalin made that were just so unreasonable for Hitler?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ClR9tcpKZec
youtube.com/watch?v=2m2BHAeQGxg
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-Soviet_Frontier_Treaty
youtube.com/watch?v=5agLW7fTzBc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

he didn't make any demands, the invasion was precautionary to an invasion by the Soviets I'm guessing

You're forgetting the part where both dictators were idealists, and sincerely believed that the other nation/ideology had to be destroyed to achieve their goals.

Stalin believed that Nazi Germany was another racist/capitalist tool that eventually had to be dealt with (like Poland in 1919), before the communist revolution could be brought to liberate the people of Europe.

Hitler believed Soviet Russia was another front for international Jewery, and embodied everything "poisoning" human improvement; from communism to race-mixing.

Why didn't they just become allies? They were both edgy socialists and both hated capitalism and western liberalism. It wouldn't have been too much of a stretch for them to team up.

Here's how it actually happened
>germany is about to start fucking up central europe
>anschluss
>ussr is completely opposed to fascism, and as such offers military support to Czechoslovakia
>Poland's right wing dictatorship forbids this
>meanwhile allied powers completely support the annexation and partition of czechoslovakia
>ussr realises it is on it's own
>draws up non-aggression pact with nazi germany to stall for time before the inevitable nazi invasion of russia
>spends the intervening years desperately trying to industrialise and modernise before the war
>war
>soviet triumph

there were no "unreasonable demands" - germany invaded because they had already conquered the rest of europe and couldn't realistically do anything about britain

Both were planning on betraying the other and invading, but Stalin wanted to wait to build up the Army after the Purge as well as till the West tired itself out fighting against each other, but Hitler panicked and struck first

Because communism wants to spread and Hitler was all about stopping communism from spreading.

>You're forgetting the part where both dictators were idealists, and sincerely believed that the other nation/ideology had to be destroyed to achieve their goals.

Not really, Hitler was a practioner of realpolitiks, as example of making a deal with the soviet union. And lol at the idea of Stalin wanting to fight Hitler because he was "racist" Stalin hated jews to, just not to the degree of Hitler and nazi dogma, and purged them out of soviet positions of power. Theres all those stories of jews in ukraine welcoming german tanks as liberators because Russia for a long time was strongly anti-jew


Also, Stalin was fucking terrified of Hitler to the point where he went into denial mode when German first invaded Russia

>there were no "unreasonable demands"

this is what I was basing it on. Hitler says Russia was moving into Finland for no real reason and then making all of these demands from Germany that were unreasonable, basically trying to fuck them over.

youtube.com/watch?v=ClR9tcpKZec

He wasnt terrified of Hitler. He thought they were comrades. Friends even. Equals in some weird sense. He ignored tons of intel about Hitlers plans because he trusted Hitler. Which is also why he was in denial when Germany attacked. His bro Hitler wouldnt do that.

>the "stalin was antisemitic" meme

the underlining factor was oil and resources, especially the wealth of it in Eastern Europe/Caucasus.

the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact also included a very detailed trade deal between Germany and the USSR, where the Soviets would provide enough oil for Germany to prosecute the war.

as the year went on, Germany was consuming about 25% more oil than it could produce in-house, with the deficit being made up by the Soviet shipments.

Hitler's nightmare was that the Soviets would use this as a trump card to bend Germany's arm, using the oil to hold the nation ransom. Hitler was going to have none of that and knew he needed more resources to wage the war against the British Empire and eventually the US. So Operation Barbarossa was drawn up.

there was also attempts to make a drive for middle eastern oil, but that required the seizure of the Suez Canal to be possible, where the Germans and Italians were stopped at El Alamein.

No one said Stalin wanted to fight Hitler solely because he was racist but anti-racism was a part of Communist ideology.

Think I read somewhere that the Germans planned to push down through the Caucasus and advance on Suez (as well as the allies' other middle eastern possessions) from the east - a plan which came to an end when they got fucked at Stalingrad.

I always find it funny the biggest motivation for both Japan and Germany during ww2 was oil.

yeah, Hitler mentions the fight over Romanias oil supply in Im just trying to get a good understanding of Hitler and his motivations because I dont buy the "OMG HE WAS A RAVING MAD MAN EVIL COMIC BOOK VILLAIN" but also not the stormfag "HITLER WAS A CRUSADER OF JUSTICE" shit either

He invaded because war is the inevitable consequence of a fascist power bordering a communist one - especially given the size of the two countries.

He thought he could knock out the USSR - and gain access to all their natural resources - before the country had truly modernized their army and infrastructure.

They were both economically illiterate collectivist dictatorships so they chimped out and attacked each other because they relied on violence to achieve their socialist endgoals.

>be economically illiterate
>modernise my country/ get it out of one of the worst recessions it ever had to face
>become a superpower after the war/ wage war against basically everyone and fare extremely well

Ther perks of being economically illiterate.

theres also this

youtube.com/watch?v=2m2BHAeQGxg

>FASCISM
>THE SAME AS SOCIALISM
KILL YOURSELF

Pretty much the same thing, they were both opposed to limited government, free market capitalism and the rights of the individual over that of the society.

>my super specific brand of socalism!

>using "muh hundred billion million" figures
>not including ww2 casualties in the nazi figure
>thinking the nazis were opposed to free-market capitalism

people seem to forget that the 2 sides modified the treaty a few months after it was signed, moving some originally German land to the USSR, while giving some Soviet land to the Germans.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-Soviet_Frontier_Treaty

holy shit you cant actually be this fucking dumb

They were not truly free market capitalists though, they were corporatists.

>le nazis were capitalist Christians, just like professor silversteinberg told me!

This fucking meme needs to die desu. It's not even relevant in response to that post

>This fucking meme needs to die desu

well maybe commie apologist should stop saying it all the time

>one nazi held socialist views therefore the whole movement was a socialist movement!

>one nazi

lol

...

they literally only called themselves national socialists to attract people from the german communist party at the time

except "commie apologists" don't say that, ever.

"muh brand of socialism" is spouted by 16 year old anarchists and leftcoms on /leftypol/ - who don't like existing socialism because "the state is bad, man" and only owe allegiance to vauge anti-establishment principles rather than the class interests of the proletariat.

If that's true, then that literally means that commies are so retarded they'll support the antithesis of their own parties because of a name without even checking its policies

>B-but one quote proves that it was a socialist movement
>w-we don't need to actually look at their socio-economic policies or stated ideology, right?

>except "commie apologists" don't say that, ever.

>proceeds to talk about the specific type of commie apologist that do just that

im pretty sure goebbles himself said its easier to convert someone from the extreme left than to convert a moderate.

>oh no its a communist, quick keep posting the same meme and use it to discredit them forever

I don't need to discredit commies, they do a fine job of it themselves

Except they aren't "commie apologists" because they denounce every single case of actual existing socialism - and therefore are not "apologising" for anything. Instead of "i will defend the actions of socialist state x", it's "that isn't real socialism REEEE"

How can you then call those people "apologists"?

>communist regimes pop up
>turn into brutal corrupt dictator ships
>repeat 192849384 times
>people start thinking "wow, maybe communism is a bad idea"
>communist, in a desperate act to save the chance of their idea to grow, try to convince everyone that all those brutal regimes arent "real communist"
>thus apologist for the idea of communism, by denouncing all the shitty dictatorships

my favorite one is "muh paris commune" some shitty literally who street gang of book burners is the best thing they have to brag about lol

>some shitty literally who street gang of book burners

Nailed it. Most commie revolutionaries are literally ISIS tier.

>And if so, what were the demands Stalin made that were just so unreasonable for Hitler?

Stalin just wanted a pony for his birthday.

>implying those people are actual members of the proletariat and not liberal middle-class american college students who watched v for vendetta once

It's never the fucking proletariat, because the poor know that they're all just hawking snake oil

You need to leave burgertown once in a while friend.

I come from a formerly socialist country and I can tell you I know the truth of it more than you, suburban pinko

>Muh triangle

lol no, molotov fucked hitler out of Lithuania and most of his polish clay, perfidious commies just declared war belayed and didn't send enough troops to occupy the buffer state. I doubt they would have invaded germany though as shitty as their finland invasion was and their lazy poland invasion

Then you would know that there is a great deal of support and appreciation for the previous socialist governments

>not giving specifics of age and location

it was ever thus

>Not really, Hitler was a practioner of realpolitiks
I disagree fully, allow me to explain.

People often are divided into three main schools of thought for why Hitler lost the war; Hitler was stupid, Hitler was crazy, Germany never had a chance. Though I think there's a bit of truth in all these, and though I think the third is most accurate, I believe they're all fundamentally wrong. It is true that most of the Nazis were lifelong underachievers (Hitler was a failed artist and did everything he could to NOT be promoted during WWI despite showing valor in battle); and though Hitler was crazy by at least March 1945, for most of his life his contemporaries were impressed by his "remarkable grasp of reality". He was capable of putting aside ideology at critical times (M-R Pact), but at even more critical times he sacrificed expedience purely for ideology.

During the Battle for Britain when the Luftwaffe needed every plane they could get, he kept way too high of a garrison to defend Berlin from British counterattacks, entirely because he made a petty promise at the start of the war "not one bomb would fall on Berlin". In the years before war when he should've been building up Germany's navy, he said it was unnecessary to compete with Britain on the seas because "no two Germanic peoples would ever need to fight each other", despite him personally fighting in battle against Brits in WWI. He remained loyal to Italy long after they started severely hindering Germany, he declared war on the US out of loyalty to Japan and because America "was a nation of niggers owned by Jews". He invaded neutral USSR to destroy communism in a country whose leader had long since killed the Russian Revolution and made himself basically king. He prioritized the transports of Jews to extermination camps by the end of the war on the railways, much to the dismay of his Generals, who needed those railways to transport much needed soldiers and equipment.

(cont.)

You know it might be interesting to see a alternate history where Hitler felt the same, and he did not attack Russia, and just kept going at the UK and trying to burn England to the ground.

>not liberal middle-class

you mean like Marx and Engel? fucking retard

Is that why they fell so easily, and capitalism was immediately brought in? Don't prattle at me of history, Westerner.

Poland, 22 y/ old

probably wouldn't work out for the germans if those japs still attacked pearl harbour

(cont.)

Hitler lost the war entirely because he placed his ideals (the Jews must be destroyed, no war with fellow Germanic nations, loyalty even to allies who're damaging the war effort, mixed-race countries like America and Russia are easy to defeat, etc.) over German victory.

You are right about Stalin being an antisemite though. I think in the west we think Stalin was somehow less evil than Hitler because he merely killed anyone who disagreed with him, whereas Hitler did that but also killed people just for their race. But that argument ignores all the forced starvation and exterminations of Ukrainians and Poles (and later Jews if Stalin lived longer), whom he killed under the guise they were "enemies of the revolution" when in reality he was trying to pacify newly conquered territories and "cleanse" them of their occupants. Stalin was just as evil as Hitler, and the fact that contemporary communists still defend a man who destroyed the Russian Revolution, along with everyone around him on his pursuit to power, shows how ignorant they are.

But Hitler ultimately lost the war precisely because he was a Nazi.

>youtube.com/watch?v=5agLW7fTzBc

>Poland, 22 y/ old

cant remember the name of it, but theres a polish board game thats basically "communist monopoly" thats all about making fun of it so the future generations will know how shitty it was.

Didden't, Nazi Germany lose like 80% of their troops on the eastern front? If those guys on were sent west, that would severely fuck up the Allies. I mean if Hitler even decides to join the war against America with Japan. But if he does it will still be a tough fight for America. Far harder than it normally was. And if the Soviet Union is not just neutral towards the Nazis but actually allies then they may have a shot of winning/not being conquered.

>implying political divisions don't exist within a country
>implying that being from a country gives you the right to speak solely for that country and ignore the millions of voices who disagree with you - many of whom actually lived under socialism

>it's a leftie westnigger trying to lecture us about our countries episode

wew

The allies would still have won though, because what allowed the western front to succeed was the destruction of the german airforce.

If there had been ONLY political division then the government would have been taken down but the socialist system would have stayed, yet it was replaced.

Also
>implying that being from a country gives you the right to speak solely for that country
It doesn't, but it sure as fuck gives me more right than some underage delusional loser from the West

The only claim I ever made about your country was "many people supported, and still appreciate the socialist government"

That was literally the only claim. And you didn't even refute that. Your entire "argument" is "hurr durr I'm Polish"

I'm not speaking on my own behalf, you classcuck - I'm speaking on behalf of the Polish people that I just mentioned. Many of whom I know personally because they work in my country in terribly paying jobs to escape the capitalist paradise that is Poland in 2016.

>it's an Anglo crawls out of its hole episode
wew lad
>The only claim I ever made
>That was literally the only claim
I know deception is second nature to you Anglos but try to be more subtle next time.
You literally said
>>implying political divisions don't exist within a country
and I answered that the entire country joined together to bring the whole system crashing down, not only in Poland but in all across Eastern Europe
>capitalist paradise that is Poland in 2016.
If the situation is that bad with capitalism you can visualize how shit socialism would need to be for people to willingly turn away from it

When I said

>implying political divisions don't exist within a country

I was referring to the situation NOW. As in - you don't get to speak for the entire polish people now - because there are people with different views than yourself. That was in response to your post where you said "I'm polish don't lecture me on history" despite me not having done that.

There is literally no evidence to support this. If there were, wouldn't operation Barbarossa have gone a lot worse? The Soviet Union was nowhere near ready for a war

Sure thing, my perfidious friend. Actual socialists are a minority in this country, and for a good reason

Hitler tried to kill all leftists in Germany, learn some history guys

>What is the Catalonian revolution

>actual socialists

Now the right winger resorts to the "not true socialism" meme - how ironic.

This is okay thread I just don't get why so many people are unaware of the socialist roots of the NSDAP. Have you faggots never heard of Rohm or Strasser? There was a radical anti capitalist component to the Nazis that got purged once Hitler realized he had to play ball with the aristocracy and Krupp to get what he wanted.

That doesn't mean he wasn't left wing, also lefties tend to turn on each other in true collectivist fashion.

It probably wouldn't have worked even without that.

Some 79.4% of casualties were on the Eastern Front by the end of 1944, yes (German bookkeeping mostly broke down in 1945). However, that figure itself is somewhat deceptive: The Western Allies, with their command of the commons, especially sea, could isolate and contain far better than the Soviets did. The Russians tended to steamroller everything in their path, because they could only really take the most direct routes between their territory and Germany. The Allies, on the other hand, had far more luxury to move around German concentrations. You had the Bordeaux holdout in France itself, something like 15 divisions sitting on their asses uselessly in Norway for most of the war, all those troops garrisoning southern Yugoslavia and Greece that never were committed, etc: If you look at actual deployment of resources split East/West, it's a lot more like 60/40, precise numbers depending on how you weigh air assets (which were predominantly sent against the west) vs ground assets (predominantly sent against the east)

>I mean if Hitler even decides to join the war against America with Japan. But if he does it will still be a tough fight for America. Far harder than it normally was.

Combat demonstration in Italy, where both sides saturated the front in terms of firepower, indicated that a slow American advance is likely to happen even in the worst case scenarios. And given the Anglo-American love and post 1943 effectiveness of interdiction bombing, it's questionable how much of those extra forces Germany could even maneuver around.

>Hitler lost the war entirely because he placed his ideals (the Jews must be destroyed, no war with fellow Germanic nations, loyalty even to allies who're damaging the war effort, mixed-race countries like America and Russia are easy to defeat, etc.) over German victory.

It is unlikely that even with optimum realpolitik deployment, Hitler could have knocked out either the UK or the USSR. Without either, or more realistically, both of those, final victory is going to elude him. The butcher's bill will probably run higher, but he's still likely to lose in the end.

Well yeah, because the comes claiming to be socialists now are really just capitalists with a bit of flourish, because no one in their right mind will elect a real one in at least 50 years

>its a "slavs are superior" episode

wew

So are you honestly saying that there is no chance that there could be a world war in Europe starting in 1939, and Germany being on the winning side?

I can't really think of one, no. Germany's abilities to project force far enough away from her own loci of support were too limited to deal with global opposition. About the only way that Germany "wins" WW2 is to fight some battles, win them, and use those to parlay into a favorable peace, but that's not something that happens in a total war, you either win or you die. And Hitler's earlier brinksmanship meant that he pushed things to a total war setup by 1939. If you want Germany to win somehow, you'll have to turn the clock back earlier, probably to at least 1936.

>that's why USSR is still around, because they are an economically literate country that spends money they don't have wisely

seriously, to be this stupid...

Ok, so starting in 1936 how would he win and utterly destroy the UK?

You don't. German aviation capacity is likely to remain inferior to the UK, and shipbuilding capacity far inferior. A sealion is never likely to be in the realm of plausibility, and a convoy war/loose blockade with u-boats and cruisers is also unlikely to do enough damage to put the UK out of the war, especially since the U.S. is likely unwilling to let the British starve.

No, to win the war in Europe, you need to not go total war in the first place, and play to your political strengths as well as your military ones, in order to start a more limited war that you can win. But as soon as you talk about utterly destroying the UK, or setting down any sort of path that requires that as a victory condition, you're setting yourself up for ultimate failure. You don't have the means to obliterate the British, and the longer they stay at war with you the more likely they'll drag in the Americans, and even if you completely wipe out the Soviets (good luck) sooner or later they'll start dropping nuclear bombs on Berlin.

You need to play to international sympathies about Versailles, and a general notion of Communist menace on an international level, to start up a more limited war if you want to win. Ideally, you don't fight Britain at all.

What if you had the Soviets as your allies, so you don't have to worry about your flanks and you got free resources from them? Could Germany destroy Britain with the help of Russia, or could it only be done if you convinced America(good luck).

The truth that you won't find in the history books, is that Stalin and Hitler were engaged in an intimate homosexual relationship throughout the 1930's. Once Hitler found out that Stalin was cheating on him with another man, Roosevelt, he was furious. The entire buildup to WW2 was based entirely on romance drama.

>Stalin was an idealist who genuinely believed in Communism

That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

>What if you had the Soviets as your allies, so you don't have to worry about your flanks and you got free resources from them? Could Germany destroy Britain with the help of Russia, or could it only be done if you convinced America(good luck).

Well, to start off, a German-Soviet alliance actively aimed at defeating Britain seems less likely than the reverse, an eventual alliance (or at least understanding) while the Germans fought the USSR.

But assuming for the moment that the MR pact held indefinitely, you and Stalin are the best of buds, and the only forces you're leaving on your eastern fronteir are what you need to occupy Poland. It is still unlikely that Germany could prevail against the UK in a decisive manner. Keep them out of Europe indefinitely, sure, but strategic bombing proved incapable of forcing a German surrender, and Germany never even dropped 1/10th of the tonnage of bombs on Britain as the Allies dropped on Germany. In fact, even strat bombing's impact on the production war is deeply questionable, but dealing with that goes far outside the scope of a Veeky Forums post.

You're also not likely to build up the kind of armada you'd need to go across the channel and take the fight to England directly. D-Day shipped roughly 7 divisions by sea, and that took over 4,000 landing craft. In a situation where Allied air and naval presence was pretty much unopposed. You're likely to get none of those conditions for a sealion, so good luck getting ashore and staying there for more than a few days, assuming the Home Fleet doesn't catch your invasion force in the act and wipes you all out.

Any push to knock out Britain is going to have to come from within Whitehall, but as long as you present a threat profile of existential menace, that's extremely unlikely.

So pretty much Germany can only wipe out the UK if they have either the US on their side, or if they managed to actually build multiple nukes?

Even multiple nukes are unlikely to do the trick, unless we're talking thermonuclear weapons, which won't exist for some time.

And yes, U.S. support would also likely do the trick, although I can't really think of any political situation which would involve the U.S. being an active participant to the UK's destruction. Even neutrality is stretching credulity.

Really, Hitler's best bet is to try to lower his threat profile and keep Britain out of the war in the first place, or at least amenable to a peace at some price in German concessions from battlefield positions.

What about just going the long route, and after Hitler takes France he just keeps building up his navy and air force and uses all the infrastructure of Europe and trade with the Soviets to keep advancing technologically and building more planes and ships. Eventually with all the resources of Europe it should be able to take on the British. As long as Hitler does not piss off the Americans.

Or they could've just forged an alliance with time-traveling aliens and put plasma cannons on Stukas or something.

Real life isn't like Risk. Hitler doesn't have "All the resources of Europe" at his disposal. Go look up wartime production figures for late 40- early 41, even with most of Europe under his thumb, he still lags behind the UK alone. Occupied countries don't provide you with their best industrial work, and even if they did, you're still limited by things like acceptable pilots and aircrew; the manpower issue usually being the pinch rather than the material in the air war.

A long route is unlikely to change the fundamental balance of power. Britiain is likely to outproduce him by about 1.2:1 on planes, and about 5:1 on ships. It's not happening.

Well after Hitler conquered France, Britain would not be able to invade without help from either the Soviets, or Americans. If they don't get that, the most they can do is send a few bombers. But really at that point the war would devolve into the Germans and Brits glaring across the Chanel from each other, and maybe occasionally sending mean messages to each other. How long would Britain be willing to be at war with German occupied Europe when they can't do any damage to the Germans and the Germans can't do anything to them? It would be pointless.

To western communist retards, absolutely.

To support what? That the german invasion of the USSR was a pre-emptive strike?
Why would Barbarossa go worse?
Your 3rd sentence doesn't even make sense in context with the 2nd sentence.

You seem to know a lot about the subject, so Im going to ask you a question.

What exaclty made the uk strong and too much for hitler? Was its economy that gathered many materials and generated money from the colonies or was it their position on the sea far from mainland europe? Or maybe was it their superior naval and aircraft power?

So, in reality, how far head was britain from thr nazis, considering even the amount of land and machiney accumulated by hitler with his conquests in europe?

I would look at the Napoleonic wars as indication as to how long Birtain could keep at things in spirit, even if they're not materially affecting their enemies much.

Plus, once France falls, American intervention is likely a question of "when", not "if". Gallup polls showed a huge anti-German shift then.

Well, it's a couple of things. Primarily though, it was the isolation. If there was a land bridge connecting England to France, they'd have been overrun in 1940. They had something like 28 divisions to the Germans 180+ (At work so I can't get to my pdf with org-charts, can get it to you by local evening, if you're still interested)

But this "amount of land and machinery" gained by conquest one is the biggest problem people have wiht approaching the German war economy. It's hard to get skilled work out of a conquered populace. Historically, the overwhelming majority of German war kit was manufactured either in Germany itself, or in Czechoslovakia. Occupation in places like Poland, France, places of the USSR that they took, etc. pretty much only yielded primary resources, food and raw materials and the like.

When it came time to process those raw materials, Germany just had less industry to work with than Britain did, which was a major manufacturer in the early 20th century, and they had a worldwide network to draw upon for trade. They were tougher than people give them credit for. Especially the aircraft power, the superiority was built during the war, not before it: Britain built roughly 6 planes for every 5 the Germans did, and were often building bigger, and consequently more expensive planes to boot.

>>???russia demands a bunch of unrealistic things from germany, believing they have them by the balls???
Where have you read this? Stalin agreed to almost every whim hitler had between September 1939 and June 1941. It's partly the reason why he attacked when he did. A country who can supply tons of food via trade at a moments notice is a country whose resources you want.

Shhh... that would fuck up the narrative.