25 Mar 2010, 17:38
So what do you guys think about the pact the Soviets made with the Nazis to carve up Eastern Europe between the two totalitarian regimes? Sounds like a spineless sell out to me.
25 Mar 2010, 18:22
Even I disagree with the pact but it not like you say. It was a nonaggression pact not a cooperative pact. Then the Nazis attacked even though. Thankfully the union has industrialized to a point to resist and then conquer the Nazis.
26 Mar 2010, 06:31
Stalin knew that Hitler would break the pact, but he made a pact in order to prepare for the invasion, that way russia could properly fight a war against a competitor like Germany.
26 Mar 2010, 17:06
No one knew Hitler would break the pact. It was a completely irrational move that opened up a new front in the war and lost it for them. The Soviet Union wanted to dominate Eastern Europe and cosied up with a Hitler to get its way.
26 Mar 2010, 17:21
Stalin didn't come close to dominating Eastern Europe as a result of the pact. Even the terms of the pact itself were not broad enough to allow it. In fact, Hitler would develop key allies in Eastern Europe.
27 Mar 2010, 04:27
From what I've been reading, the pact was signed to buy time for the Soviet's. They knew Hitler would invade at some point, but it freed up resources for the Soviet's to deal with the Japanese in the East. That stopped the Empire of Japan from harassing the USSR and arguably played a role in turning their aggression to the Pacific region. It stopped Stalin from having to worry too much about a war being fought on two fronts.
27 Mar 2010, 07:10
That's true, but the only time Germany and Japan seemed like they were allies was when the Germany declared war on the US since the US declared war on Japan. Anyways I think that Stalin did assume that Hitler would invade, but he thought that it would happen a year later than it did.
27 Mar 2010, 18:31
Mein Kamf says Hitler wanted to attack Russia.. yeah, and the communist manifesto said the state would no longer exist and living conditions would improve! haha its got nothing to do with what actually would have happened.
27 Mar 2010, 19:07
yea except the communist manifesto declared the state wouldn't exist in communism, not socialism which the USSR practiced. also living conditions did improve.
also it has everything to do with what happened. mein kampf was a plan of action that the nazis abided to. not to mention, this whole comparison is a logical fallacy.
28 Mar 2010, 23:26
lol, captainsnow fails again.
On topic, with Allied support, could Stalin's USSR feasibly have defeated Hitler in 1939? Or were the soviets still simply too unprepared?
29 Mar 2010, 00:08
depends, does it mean that negociation for the nazi-soviet pact would have failed? or would it be broken right after it was signed? because the ussr negociated for a pact with france and britain which failed.
29 Mar 2010, 00:57
Shit. I meant 1940. During the battle of France. I'm talking about what would have happened if Stalin had just said "screw it", and invaded from the east. Did he have the capacity to do so?
29 Mar 2010, 01:21
I read in Ian Kershaw's Fateful Choices that Gen. Zhukov presented Stalin with a detailed plan to take the Romanian oil fields sometime around 1940 or 41. Stalin, however, dismissed it. So maybe it was possible for the SU to make a strike.
29 Mar 2010, 01:45
I remember reading something about Stalin inviting the western allies to invade germany when it was militarizing.
29 Mar 2010, 06:08
Yeah, even as early as 1937.
29 Mar 2010, 17:59
I think he just wanted them to destroy each other.
29 Mar 2010, 19:43
and the western world wanted germany and russia to destroy each other.