Soviet Union…. AXIS!!!!!!!

@Pvt.Ryan:

Okay so we’ve all talked about how what the war would have turned out to be like if the Soviets did join or if Germany didn’t attack Russia. But here’s a shocker. What if they joined the AXIS!!! Read this article (I haven’t but it gave me the inspiration to post this).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks

What would have happened? I think that the Allies would have been SMASHED! China would have collapsed and Sovet troops attacking Persia then India and moving through the Middle East! Soviets invading Britain! CRAZY!!!  :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o

That was a good read! :)

The crux of the article was the following:

Instead of two secret protocols, Stalin proposed five:

• that German troops depart Finland in exchange for a Soviet guarantee of continued nickel and wood shipments and peace with Finland;

• a mutual assistance pact be signed with Bulgaria in the next few months permitting Soviet bases

• The center of Soviet territorial domination would be south of Baku and Batumi (ports in modern Azerbaijan and Georgia, south of which are Iraq and Iran)

• Japanese renunciation of rights to northern Sakhalin oil and coal concessions in exchange for appropriate compensation

• Affirms that the Soviet-Bulgaria mutual assistance treaty was a political necessity.[79]

The offer came concurrently with massive German-favorable economic offers.[78] The Soviets promised, by May 11, 1941 the delivery of 2.5 million tons of grain—1 million tons above its current obligations.[79]

Suppose Hitler had responded to the above-described proposals with the following:

• Germany retains no more than five divisions in Finland at any given time, with Soviet inspections allowed to ensure compliance.
• Pressure on Turkey to allow Germany and the Soviet Union to each have a fort + coastal batteries overlooking the passage from the Mediterranean to the Black Seas.
• Rejection of the Soviets’ demand for bases in Bulgaria. A Soviet coastal battery along the strait to the Black Sea would partially address Soviet concerns about access to the Black Sea, as would the agreement that German, Italian, and Japanese naval ships would not be allowed passage into the Black Sea.
• Instead of describing the Soviet offer of mutual assistance to Bulgaria as a “political necessity,” the Soviets’ offer would be praised as a concrete step towards European peace. The Bulgarian government would also receive praise. The objective here would have been to avoid painting the pro-German Bulgarian government in a negative light.
• Acceptance of the Soviets’ other proposals, except that Germany would try to bargain for an increase in the proposed grain shipments.

What actually happened was that Hitler did not respond to the Soviets’ proposal described above. Instead, he invaded the Soviet Union, in part because he and the German military had vastly underestimated the Red Army’s ability to quickly recruit truly massive numbers of men. Suppose that instead, Hitler had made the above-described counter-offer, and Stalin had accepted it. What then?

My sense is that Stalin had no interest in invading the British Isles outright, or in becoming a participant in the air and sea war between Britain and Germany. However, he may have been interested in adding places such as Persia and India to the Soviet Union. The question is whether he would have acted immediately, or would have waited until England was taken. FDR was no fan of British imperialism, and had once proposed a Soviet-style revolution for India. It is difficult to imagine that he personally would have major objections to Soviet southward expansion, though political pressure might force him to engage in anti-Soviet rhetoric or symbolic measures. The question is whether Stalin would have realized how little non-British resistance there would be.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that the Soviet Union took South Asia, Germany, Italy, and Vichy France took the rest of Africa, and Japan took southeast Asia, Indonesia, New Guinea, and possibly Australia. The British Commonwealth would be reduced to little more than the British Isles and Canada. Presumably, the loss of all that territory would crimp its own ability to produce aircraft, and (importantly) its ability to pay for U.S.-built aircraft. While FDR personally would have had no objection to lending them more and more money, at some point someone might point out that Britain was near bankruptcy. That might have put limits on the number of aircraft the U.S. could send each year. Meanwhile, Germany could focus on increasing its industrial capacity. While it probably wouldn’t have been able to produce as many military aircraft as could the combined Anglo-American production effort, it might have been able to remain within shouting distance. The plan here would be to remain in the war indefinitely, until the lack of military success, increasing financial duress, and other problems forced a change in Britain’s political leadership; thereby making a peace treaty possible. Germany could offer to restore some of Britain’s colonies to sweeten the deal.

All this assumes that Stalin would have sat passively by and watched this happen. There is a chance he would have done exactly that: he realized the Soviet Union was not ready for war, and he wanted several years to prepare. On the other hand, he did not want a peace treaty between Britain and Germany: he regarded both nations as enemies, and wanted them to bleed each other white. It’s possible he would have seen a Soviet invasion of Germany as the best way of keeping Britain in the war, especially if it looked as though Churchill’s support was beginning to falter. On the other hand, waiting would give him the chance to consolidate his gains in South Asia, add millions of Indian and Pakistani men to the Red Army, and prepare for the invasion of Germany in the late '40s or early '50s. By then, the U.S. government might have been significantly less pro-Soviet than it had been during and immediately after WWII. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union would, very likely, have been strong enough to succeed with its invasion, even if the Western democracies remained neutral.

@KurtGodel7:

@Pvt.Ryan:

Okay so we’ve all talked about how what the war would have turned out to be like if the Soviets did join or if Germany didn’t attack Russia. But here’s a shocker. What if they joined the AXIS!!! Read this article (I haven’t but it gave me the inspiration to post this).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks

What would have happened? I think that the Allies would have been SMASHED! China would have collapsed and Sovet troops attacking Persia then India and moving through the Middle East! Soviets invading Britain! CRAZY!!!  :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o :-o

That was a good read! :)

The crux of the article was the following:

---

Instead of two secret protocols, Stalin proposed five:

• that German troops depart Finland in exchange for a Soviet guarantee of continued nickel and wood shipments and peace with Finland;

• a mutual assistance pact be signed with Bulgaria in the next few months permitting Soviet bases

• The center of Soviet territorial domination would be south of Baku and Batumi (ports in modern Azerbaijan and Georgia, south of which are Iraq and Iran)

• Japanese renunciation of rights to northern Sakhalin oil and coal concessions in exchange for appropriate compensation

• Affirms that the Soviet-Bulgaria mutual assistance treaty was a political necessity.[79]

The offer came concurrently with massive German-favorable economic offers.[78] The Soviets promised, by May 11, 1941 the delivery of 2.5 million tons of grain—1 million tons above its current obligations.[79]

---

Suppose Hitler had responded to the above-described proposals with the following:

• Germany retains no more than five divisions in Finland at any given time, with Soviet inspections allowed to ensure compliance.
• Pressure on Turkey to allow Germany and the Soviet Union to each have a fort + coastal batteries overlooking the passage from the Mediterranean to the Black Seas.
• Rejection of the Soviets’ demand for bases in Bulgaria. A Soviet coastal battery along the strait to the Black Sea would partially address Soviet concerns about access to the Black Sea, as would the agreement that German, Italian, and Japanese naval ships would not be allowed passage into the Black Sea.
• Instead of describing the Soviet offer of mutual assistance to Bulgaria as a “political necessity,” the Soviets’ offer would be praised as a concrete step towards European peace. The Bulgarian government would also receive praise. The objective here would have been to avoid painting the pro-German Bulgarian government in a negative light.
• Acceptance of the Soviets’ other proposals, except that Germany would try to bargain for an increase in the proposed grain shipments.

What actually happened was that Hitler did not respond to the Soviets’ proposal described above. Instead, he invaded the Soviet Union, in part because he and the German military had vastly underestimated the Red Army’s ability to quickly recruit truly massive numbers of men. Suppose that instead, Hitler had made the above-described counter-offer, and Stalin had accepted it. What then?

My sense is that Stalin had no interest in invading the British Isles outright, or in becoming a participant in the air and sea war between Britain and Germany. However, he may have been interested in adding places such as Persia and India to the Soviet Union. The question is whether he would have acted immediately, or would have waited until England was taken. FDR was no fan of British imperialism, and had once proposed a Soviet-style revolution for India. It is difficult to imagine that he personally would have major objections to Soviet southward expansion, though political pressure might force him to engage in anti-Soviet rhetoric or symbolic measures. The question is whether Stalin would have realized how little non-British resistance there would be.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that the Soviet Union took South Asia, Germany, Italy, and Vichy France took the rest of Africa, and Japan took southeast Asia, Indonesia, New Guinea, and possibly Australia. The British Commonwealth would be reduced to little more than the British Isles and Canada. Presumably, the loss of all that territory would crimp its own ability to produce aircraft, and (importantly) its ability to pay for U.S.-built aircraft. While FDR personally would have had no objection to lending them more and more money, at some point someone might point out that Britain was near bankruptcy. That might have put limits on the number of aircraft the U.S. could send each year. Meanwhile, Germany could focus on increasing its industrial capacity. While it probably wouldn’t have been able to produce as many military aircraft as could the combined Anglo-American production effort, it might have been able to remain within shouting distance. The plan here would be to remain in the war indefinitely, until the lack of military success, increasing financial duress, and other problems forced a change in Britain’s political leadership; thereby making a peace treaty possible. Germany could offer to restore some of Britain’s colonies to sweeten the deal.

All this assumes that Stalin would have sat passively by and watched this happen. There is a chance he would have done exactly that: he realized the Soviet Union was not ready for war, and he wanted several years to prepare. On the other hand, he did not want a peace treaty between Britain and Germany: he regarded both nations as enemies, and wanted them to bleed each other white. It’s possible he would have seen a Soviet invasion of Germany as the best way of keeping Britain in the war, especially if it looked as though Churchill’s support was beginning to falter. On the other hand, waiting would give him the chance to consolidate his gains in South Asia, add millions of Indian and Pakistani men to the Red Army, and prepare for the invasion of Germany in the late '40s or early '50s. By then, the U.S. government might have been significantly less pro-Soviet than it had been during and immediately after WWII. Nevertheless, the Soviet Union would, very likely, have been strong enough to succeed with its invasion, even if the Western democracies remained neutral.

Its an interesting situation to consider. If Britain was really threatened with the destruction of its empire it would of likely switched sides and fought the Soviets instead. If they didnt switch sides the British empire would of been dismantled, however I think the United States would of taken posession of Australia and New Zealand as part of its territories in order to have a large presence in the south Pacific.

Ever since I began reading about world history as a child I always had this image of British and German tank formations advancing on Moscow. Had Hitler been less agressive and slowly forced the British and French apart, they may very well of been allies and carved up the world just like Hitler envisioned. Had that alliance materialised they could of crushed the Soviet Union with their superior man power and industrial capacity.

Many of us including myself at times forget how strong pro-Nazi sentiment was in the pre 1939 world, even in places like the United States. I truly wonder how the Nazi regime would of been if they had the British as equal partners somewhat holding the leash and making sure they didnt make the catastrophic political mistakes they made in reality. For a start the Holocaust and persecution of Slavic peoples within the Soviet Union. It may very well of brought about a better world where by Germany was much the way modern day Germany is, tolerant, fair and industrious. I dont think the Germans really had plans for world domination, they were more a necessity after they ended up starting wars with most of the major powers in the world.

@Octospire:

I truly wonder how the Nazi regime would of been if they had the British as equal partners somewhat holding the leash and making sure they didnt make the catastrophic political mistakes they made in reality. For a start the Holocaust and persecution of Slavic peoples within the Soviet Union. It may very well of brought about a better world where by Germany was much the way modern day Germany is, tolerant, fair and industrious.

I have trouble buying the concept that late-1930s Germany would have evolved into a tolerant and fair society if the Nazis had been left in charge of the country, considering that it was the Nazis who turned Germany into a right-wing totalitarian dictatorship which engaged in state-sanctioned persecution of religious minorities and other groups which were regarded as undesirable.

@Octospire:

Its an interesting situation to consider. If Britain was really threatened with the destruction of its empire it would of likely switched sides and fought the Soviets instead. If they didnt switch sides the British empire would of been dismantled, however I think the United States would of taken posession of Australia and New Zealand as part of its territories in order to have a large presence in the south Pacific.

Ever since I began reading about world history as a child I always had this image of British and German tank formations advancing on Moscow. Had Hitler been less agressive and slowly forced the British and French apart, they may very well of been allies and carved up the world just like Hitler envisioned. Had that alliance materialised they could of crushed the Soviet Union with their superior man power and industrial capacity.

Many of us including myself at times forget how strong pro-Nazi sentiment was in the pre 1939 world, even in places like the United States. I truly wonder how the Nazi regime would of been if they had the British as equal partners somewhat holding the leash and making sure they didnt make the catastrophic political mistakes they made in reality. For a start the Holocaust and persecution of Slavic peoples within the Soviet Union. It may very well of brought about a better world where by Germany was much the way modern day Germany is, tolerant, fair and industrious. I dont think the Germans really had plans for world domination, they were more a necessity after they ended up starting wars with most of the major powers in the world.

Good post! :)

Hitler would have liked nothing more than an Anglo-German alliance directed against the Soviet Union.

However, there was a problem. As you correctly pointed out, there was considerable pro-Nazi sympathy prior to 1939. But among the world’s elites, the bias was decidedly pro-Soviet and anti-German. Such was the case with Daladier, FDR, the U.S. media, etc.

Neville Chamberlain may have been an exception to that general trend. If so, then in 1938 a golden opportunity to come to some sort of understanding with Britain had been squandered through tone deaf diplomacy. (As an aside, the Kaiser’s tone deaf diplomacy was a contributing factor to WWI; or at least to Britain’s decision to take France’s side in that war.)

On one level, the decision to annex Czechoslovakia made sense. In 1935, the Czech government had signed a defensive alliance with the Soviet Union. By annexing that nation in its entirety, Germany sent a clear message to any other Eastern European government which might otherwise have found itself tempted to side with the Soviets. But in doing things the way he did, Hitler undermined Britain’s prestige, and caused Chamberlain to look weak. Undoing those things was evidently more important to Chamberlain than was stopping the spread of communism; which is why his post-Munich foreign policy was far more anti-Nazi than it was anti-Soviet.

If Hitler had limited himself to the Sudetenland, might he have been able to secure some kind of understanding with Britain? Would the British government have been willing to provide Germany with tacit support in a war against the Soviet Union? One complicating factor is that France had signed a defensive alliance with the Soviets back in 1935. Had Germany invaded the USSR, France and Czechoslovakia would have been obligated to go to war against Germany. With Britain’s friends taking the side of the Soviets, it would have been politically difficult for the British government to have taken the side of the Germans.

There is also the chance that Britain’s elites would, sooner or later, have succeeded in replacing Chamberlain with some other prime minister more interested in opposing the Nazis than the Soviets. If or when that happened, any arrangement Hitler had made with the British government would presumably be subjected to alteration.

The nightmare scenario for German strategic planners was for Germany to remain confined within a small space over the short-term, and to be invaded by the Soviet Union over the long run. The major Western democracies would have remained neutral or sided with the Soviets. Hitler tried to avoid this through a three step process. 1) Clear the board of Soviet allies, such as France and Czechoslovakia. 2) Obtain friendly relations with other Eastern European governments (such as Romania’s). Or, failing that, conquer the nations outright (Poland, Yugoslavia). 3) Invade the Soviet Union before the Red Army was ready for war.

The above strategy precluded an alliance with Britain, because a number of the Soviets’ friends were also allies of Britain; and British prestige would be damaged if it did nothing while Germany absorbed those nations. But the alternative scenario–of remaining confined to a small space, and hoping for Western democratic help if or when a Soviet invasion arrived–would have doomed Germany to near-certain defeat and Soviet occupation. (Assuming that the Soviets chose to invade.)

@CWO:

@Octospire:

I truly wonder how the Nazi regime would of been if they had the British as equal partners somewhat holding the leash and making sure they didnt make the catastrophic political mistakes they made in reality. For a start the Holocaust and persecution of Slavic peoples within the Soviet Union. It may very well of brought about a better world where by Germany was much the way modern day Germany is, tolerant, fair and industrious.

I have trouble buying the concept that late-1930s Germany would have evolved into a tolerant and fair society if the Nazis had been left in charge of the country, considering that it was the Nazis who turned Germany into a right-wing totalitarian dictatorship which engaged in state-sanctioned persecution of religious minorities and other groups which were regarded as undesirable.

Had Hitler and the Nazi’s got the alliance with the British he so badly wanted it could very well of evolved into a tolerant fair society not out of want but out of neccesity in maintaining their alliance with the British. Over time the Nazi’s would of softened whether from domestic or international pressures. We forget that the extermination of the Jews did not begin until the Nazi’s felt they had no other option after their loss in the battle of Britain, had they of had the resources they would of implemented the mass deportation of Jews to Madagascar. Now I know this is hardly a fair thing to do but it is far better than the extermination of 6 million Jews. This in itself may of not occured if their was an Anglo-German alliance in the early 1930’s.

@KurtGodel7:

@Octospire:

Its an interesting situation to consider. If Britain was really threatened with the destruction of its empire it would of likely switched sides and fought the Soviets instead. If they didnt switch sides the British empire would of been dismantled, however I think the United States would of taken posession of Australia and New Zealand as part of its territories in order to have a large presence in the south Pacific.

Ever since I began reading about world history as a child I always had this image of British and German tank formations advancing on Moscow. Had Hitler been less agressive and slowly forced the British and French apart, they may very well of been allies and carved up the world just like Hitler envisioned. Had that alliance materialised they could of crushed the Soviet Union with their superior man power and industrial capacity.

Many of us including myself at times forget how strong pro-Nazi sentiment was in the pre 1939 world, even in places like the United States. I truly wonder how the Nazi regime would of been if they had the British as equal partners somewhat holding the leash and making sure they didnt make the catastrophic political mistakes they made in reality. For a start the Holocaust and persecution of Slavic peoples within the Soviet Union. It may very well of brought about a better world where by Germany was much the way modern day Germany is, tolerant, fair and industrious. I dont think the Germans really had plans for world domination, they were more a necessity after they ended up starting wars with most of the major powers in the world.

Good post! :)

Hitler would have liked nothing more than an Anglo-German alliance directed against the Soviet Union.

However, there was a problem. As you correctly pointed out, there was considerable pro-Nazi sympathy prior to 1939. But among the world’s elites, the bias was decidedly pro-Soviet and anti-German. Such was the case with Daladier, FDR, the U.S. media, etc.

Neville Chamberlain may have been an exception to that general trend. If so, then in 1938 a golden opportunity to come to some sort of understanding with Britain had been squandered through tone deaf diplomacy. (As an aside, the Kaiser’s tone deaf diplomacy was a contributing factor to WWI; or at least to Britain’s decision to take France’s side in that war.)

On one level, the decision to annex Czechoslovakia made sense. In 1935, the Czech government had signed a defensive alliance with the Soviet Union. By annexing that nation in its entirety, Germany sent a clear message to any other Eastern European government which might otherwise have found itself tempted to side with the Soviets. But in doing things the way he did, Hitler undermined Britain’s prestige, and caused Chamberlain to look weak. Undoing those things was evidently more important to Chamberlain than was stopping the spread of communism; which is why his post-Munich foreign policy was far more anti-Nazi than it was anti-Soviet.

If Hitler had limited himself to the Sudetenland, might he have been able to secure some kind of understanding with Britain? Would the British government have been willing to provide Germany with tacit support in a war against the Soviet Union? One complicating factor is that France had signed a defensive alliance with the Soviets back in 1935. Had Germany invaded the USSR, France and Czechoslovakia would have been obligated to go to war against Germany. With Britain’s friends taking the side of the Soviets, it would have been politically difficult for the British government to have taken the side of the Germans.

There is also the chance that Britain’s elites would, sooner or later, have succeeded in replacing Chamberlain with some other prime minister more interested in opposing the Nazis than the Soviets. If or when that happened, any arrangement Hitler had made with the British government would presumably be subjected to alteration.

The nightmare scenario for German strategic planners was for Germany to remain confined within a small space over the short-term, and to be invaded by the Soviet Union over the long run. The major Western democracies would have remained neutral or sided with the Soviets. Hitler tried to avoid this through a three step process. 1) Clear the board of Soviet allies, such as France and Czechoslovakia. 2) Obtain friendly relations with other Eastern European governments (such as Romania’s). Or, failing that, conquer the nations outright (Poland, Yugoslavia). 3) Invade the Soviet Union before the Red Army was ready for war.

The above strategy precluded an alliance with Britain, because a number of the Soviets’ friends were also allies of Britain; and British prestige would be damaged if it did nothing while Germany absorbed those nations. But the alternative scenario–of remaining confined to a small space, and hoping for Western democratic help if or when a Soviet invasion arrived–would have doomed Germany to near-certain defeat and Soviet occupation. (Assuming that the Soviets chose to invade.)

You make some ineteresting points, the strategic alliances between the French and Soviets basically doomed Germany to either fighting WW2 or being a sitting duck when the Soviets came a knockin’. Chamberlain could of been bigger than Churchill in the current popular imagination if he had of engineered a successful alliance with the Germans and then defeated the Soviet Union. You are very much correct that forging an alliance would of been very difficult considering the Pro-Soviet sentiments amongst the worlds elites, however I think with the right propoganda they could of turned the tide. In reality it wouldnt even have to be propoganda just the truth about the Soviet Union under Stalin, the labour camps and purges that were reality long before exterminating the Jews was even a thought on the Nazi parties planning table.

Germany and Britain had ties going back centuries that could of been rekindled in spite of French protests, the Soviets werent going to sit within their borders forever especially with their massive advantages in manpower and industrial capacity.

What is facinating about this whole era is how accomodating Hitler tried to be with the British at least at first, he wanted an Anglo-German alliance so badly just like the alliance between the Prussians and the British during the Napoloeonic era. Had the British been receptive to these offers or at the very least not signing their way into world war 2 by alligning themselves yet again with the French things could of been very different.

As I previously said I think the key would be proganda making the Nazi’s seem like the lesser of two evils and demonising the Soviets to the point where it would be essential for the British to side with Germany. It really shouldnt of been that hard as the atttitudes of the late 1940’s and 1950’s Western world illustrated. There was already communist uprising in China undermining the Nationalist government, how hard would of it been to demonise the communist way of life and show the world what life in the Soviet Union was really like.

@Octospire:

As I previously said I think the key would be proganda making the Nazi’s seem like the lesser of two evils and demonising the Soviets to the point where it would be essential for the British to side with Germany.

This is in fact what a number of posts here and in other threads have tried to argue: that the Nazis couldn’t have been all that bad because they had the virtue of being so strongly anti-Communist, that the Nazis were unfortunately misunderstood by the Western powers, that the Nazis only really turned nasty under the pressures of war, and that the Second World War was forced on Germany by communist-sympathetic Western powers who should have realized that it would have been a much better idea for them to team up with Germany in order to launch a civilizing crusade against the evil Soviet Union.

I fully agree that Stalinist Russia was a loathsome and murderous regime (which by some estimates killed more people during its 31-year span than Hitler’s Germany did during the 12 years of its existence), and I would disagree with arguments which tried to downplay or make excuses for Stalin’s crimes.  By the same token, however, I would also disagree with arguments which tried to downplay or make excuses for Hitler’s crimes.  Both Stalin’s and Hitler’s regimes were abominations, and the world is a much better place for having seen both of these dictatorships end.

@Octospire:

You make some ineteresting points, the strategic alliances between the French and Soviets basically doomed Germany to either fighting WW2 or being a sitting duck when the Soviets came a knockin’. Chamberlain could of been bigger than Churchill in the current popular imagination if he had of engineered a successful alliance with the Germans and then defeated the Soviet Union. You are very much correct that forging an alliance would of been very difficult considering the Pro-Soviet sentiments amongst the worlds elites, however I think with the right propaganda they could of turned the tide. In reality it wouldnt even have to be propaganda just the truth about the Soviet Union under Stalin, the labour camps and purges that were reality long before exterminating the Jews was even a thought on the Nazi parties planning table.

Germany and Britain had ties going back centuries that could of been rekindled in spite of French protests, the Soviets werent going to sit within their borders forever especially with their massive advantages in manpower and industrial capacity.

What is facinating about this whole era is how accomodating Hitler tried to be with the British at least at first, he wanted an Anglo-German alliance so badly just like the alliance between the Prussians and the British during the Napoloeonic era. Had the British been receptive to these offers or at the very least not signing their way into world war 2 by alligning themselves yet again with the French things could of been very different.

As I previously said I think the key would be proganda making the Nazi’s seem like the lesser of two evils and demonising the Soviets to the point where it would be essential for the British to side with Germany. It really shouldnt of been that hard as the atttitudes of the late 1940’s and 1950’s Western world illustrated. There was already communist uprising in China undermining the Nationalist government, how hard would of it been to demonise the communist way of life and show the world what life in the Soviet Union was really like.

Good post! :)

From a purely ethical standpoint, several differences between the Nazis and the communists occur to me.

1. The Soviet government had murdered tens of millions of innocent people even before WWII began. (And added considerably to that total both during and after the war.) Conversely, the Nazi government did not begin killing large numbers of people until its food situation precluded feeding everyone within its borders.

2. The Soviet government was bent on world revolution. Outside of communist-controlled areas, their focus was primarily on tearing down the existing social order and anything which supported it. As an example of this, David Horowitz (an ex-communist who’d been raised as a red diaper baby) noted that shortly after he got married, his wife attended a meeting of communists/radical feminists. She came home in tears: the radical feminists/communists had harshly judged her for choosing to stay home and raise kids instead of putting her career first. That was the last such meeting Horowitz’s wife attended. He went on to add that within a year, every woman who chose to continue attending those meeting had had her marriage end. Communists felt that stirring up trouble between the sexes was a good way to harm the existing social order. In contrast, the Nazis were generally pro-family, and even brought Mothers Day to German-occupied France.

3. Recently, a relatively well-known Canadian journalist decided to quit her career, and become an artist instead. She went back to school to obtain her art degree. She was successful in obtaining that degree, but she said it nearly killed her as an artist. The postmodernist (read:communist) opinion is that until the world’s sexes and races are equal, beauty has no place in art. Consequently, no effort should be made to make art beautiful. This journalist chose, as her subject matter, to paint the people who cleaned up the art room after the art students were finished using it. She felt such people were too often unnoticed. Her postmodernist professors harshly condemned her for this, and asked her what she, as an educated and well-off white woman, could possibly know what it was like to be a poorly paid racial minority. While the politicization and perversion of art to suit a twisted and evil political agenda may seem like a minor thing in comparison with the mass rapes and mass murders for which communists are responsible, I still see this as significant. In contrast to this, the Nazis tended to prefer traditional to modern art, and believed that it was perfectly appropriate for art to be beautiful or visually pleasing. They sometimes censored depictions of the nude human form, which they saw as decadent.

If the common people could be made to see these and other difference between the Nazis and communists, I firmly believe that most people would respond by becoming significantly more anti-communist than they were anti-Nazi. The problem was that Western elites tended to sweep communists’ crimes under the rug, while focusing excessively on (and often exaggerating) those of the Nazis. Outright lies were told, and believed. For example, Walter Duranty of the New York Times told a number of pro-Soviet lies, including the whitewashing of the Ukrainian famine. (A forced famine that the Soviets committed in the early '30s, which resulted in deliberate starvation and death of 7 million innocent people.) Against such a backdrop, it is possible to tell the truth without necessarily being believed.

While these things would have represented an obstacle to a NATO-style Anglo-German alliance, they were not necessarily an insurmountable one. But it would have been an uphill battle, even if both Hitler and Chamberlain were both fully committed to the idea, and even if the Nazis had been as good at understanding political considerations outside Germany as von Bismarck had been.

@KurtGodel7:

@Octospire:

You make some ineteresting points, the strategic alliances between the French and Soviets basically doomed Germany to either fighting WW2 or being a sitting duck when the Soviets came a knockin’. Chamberlain could of been bigger than Churchill in the current popular imagination if he had of engineered a successful alliance with the Germans and then defeated the Soviet Union. You are very much correct that forging an alliance would of been very difficult considering the Pro-Soviet sentiments amongst the worlds elites, however I think with the right propaganda they could of turned the tide. In reality it wouldnt even have to be propaganda just the truth about the Soviet Union under Stalin, the labour camps and purges that were reality long before exterminating the Jews was even a thought on the Nazi parties planning table.

Germany and Britain had ties going back centuries that could of been rekindled in spite of French protests, the Soviets werent going to sit within their borders forever especially with their massive advantages in manpower and industrial capacity.

What is facinating about this whole era is how accomodating Hitler tried to be with the British at least at first, he wanted an Anglo-German alliance so badly just like the alliance between the Prussians and the British during the Napoloeonic era. Had the British been receptive to these offers or at the very least not signing their way into world war 2 by alligning themselves yet again with the French things could of been very different.

As I previously said I think the key would be proganda making the Nazi’s seem like the lesser of two evils and demonising the Soviets to the point where it would be essential for the British to side with Germany. It really shouldnt of been that hard as the atttitudes of the late 1940’s and 1950’s Western world illustrated. There was already communist uprising in China undermining the Nationalist government, how hard would of it been to demonise the communist way of life and show the world what life in the Soviet Union was really like.

Good post! :)

From a purely ethical standpoint, several differences between the Nazis and the communists occur to me.

1. The Soviet government had murdered tens of millions of innocent people even before WWII began. (And added considerably to that total both during and after the war.) Conversely, the Nazi government did not begin killing large numbers of people until its food situation precluded feeding everyone within its borders.

2. The Soviet government was bent on world revolution. Outside of communist-controlled areas, their focus was primarily on tearing down the existing social order and anything which supported it. As an example of this, David Horowitz (an ex-communist who’d been raised as a red diaper baby) noted that shortly after he got married, his wife attended a meeting of communists/radical feminists. She came home in tears: the radical feminists/communists had harshly judged her for choosing to stay home and raise kids instead of putting her career first. That was the last such meeting Horowitz’s wife attended. He went on to add that within a year, every woman who chose to continue attending those meeting had had her marriage end. Communists felt that stirring up trouble between the sexes was a good way to harm the existing social order. In contrast, the Nazis were generally pro-family, and even brought Mothers Day to German-occupied France.

3. Recently, a relatively well-known Canadian journalist decided to quit her career, and become an artist instead. She went back to school to obtain her art degree. She was successful in obtaining that degree, but she said it nearly killed her as an artist. The postmodernist (read:communist) opinion is that until the world’s sexes and races are equal, beauty has no place in art. Consequently, no effort should be made to make art beautiful. This journalist chose, as her subject matter, to paint the people who cleaned up the art room after the art students were finished using it. She felt such people were too often unnoticed. Her postmodernist professors harshly condemned her for this, and asked her what she, as an educated and well-off white woman, could possibly know what it was like to be a poorly paid racial minority. While the politicization and perversion of art to suit a twisted and evil political agenda may seem like a minor thing in comparison with the mass rapes and mass murders for which communists are responsible, I still see this as significant. In contrast to this, the Nazis tended to prefer traditional to modern art, and believed that it was perfectly appropriate for art to be beautiful or visually pleasing. They sometimes censored depictions of the nude human form, which they saw as decadent.

If the common people could be made to see these and other difference between the Nazis and communists, I firmly believe that most people would respond by becoming significantly more anti-communist than they were anti-Nazi. The problem was that Western elites tended to sweep communists’ crimes under the rug, while focusing excessively on (and often exaggerating) those of the Nazis. Outright lies were told, and believed. For example, Walter Duranty of the New York Times told a number of pro-Soviet lies, including the whitewashing of the Ukrainian famine. (A forced famine that the Soviets committed in the early '30s, which resulted in deliberate starvation and death of 7 million innocent people.) Against such a backdrop, it is possible to tell the truth without necessarily being believed.

While these things would have represented an obstacle to a NATO-style Anglo-German alliance, they were not necessarily an insurmountable one. But it would have been an uphill battle, even if both Hitler and Chamberlain were both fully committed to the idea, and even if the Nazis had been as good at understanding political considerations outside Germany as von Bismarck had been.

While with hindsight we can see what the Nazi’s were capable of, but we forget they were up against the wall and fighting for their very existence who knows what the British or Americans may of done in the same position. The fire bombing of Tokyo killing up to 210,000 a single night is just a preview of what the allies were capable of when faced with the massive casualties possible with an Invasion of mainland Japan.

The Germans in the early 1930’s were an intolerant towards Jews and other minorities such as gypsies but in reality they were not that much more intolerant towards Jews than the Americans in the early years of Nazi rule in Germany. Had the Nazi’s got their alliance and not surrounded on practically every side by Anti-Nazi nations it is likely they would not of comitted much of the atrocities they did in reality. As Kurt Godel quite correctly said the Soviets were already an evil regime long before the Nazi’s put the first Jew in the gas chamber. Had the Germans had alliance to maintain with the British they couldnt take the hard line with ethnic minorities and under take the actions they did in reality, I think carving up the Soviet Union would of been seen as more than worth the trade off of not so publicly persecuting ethnic minorities in the eyes of the Nazi leadership.

I agree that it would of been difficult for Chamberlain and Hitler to forge a NATO style alliance but as you say it wasnt entirely impossible and looking at the reality of World War 2 in a lot of cases the highly improbable did actually end up occuring. For instance the quick fall of France and decimation of Allied armies and also the suprisingly successful early U-boat campaign against Allied shipping in the Atlantic. I think if the Nazi’s had of been less agressive and built up their strength perhaps even getting a treaty where by their armies had free passage through Poland to the Soviet Union, that combined with a continued anti-communist propaganda campaign in Britain may very well of turned the tide of public opinion and made Hitler look like the possible saviour of the peoples of the Soviet Union. Of course had the Alliance materialised the peoples of the Ukraine and Soviet Union been treated fairly and with compassion as the invasion continued its likely that the Soviet Union would of crumbled under the weight of internal revolution and Anglo-German attack.