What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

World War II (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
Next month marks the 70th anniversary of the worst, most global conflict in human history.

I consider myself somewhat of an amateur expert on this overall subject, having read as much as I can about it. Just for the fun of it, I'm going to supply commentary on the anniversary of certain events as they come, beginning with the Nazi-Soviet Pact which was concluded in August, 1939. This serves no purpose other than the subject(s) fascinate me, and I hope it develops into a historical discussion. If anyone else wishes to add commentary as well, that would be terrific. Also, if you have questions, please feel free to ask.

 
The Nazi-Soviet Pact Part One

This was by far the most shocking agreement in world history. Hitler's entire career had centered upon a vicious attack on Bolshevism. The main support among Western Europeans was based upon the Nazis providing a bulwark against the threat of international Communism. According to National Socialism, there was no difference between Communism and Judiasm.

More importantly was the geopolitical aims of the Nazi regime. Mein Kampf very clearly states that Germany cannot survive on the land it currently owned: so long as it was dependent on other powers to provide it's food and energy supplies, it would always, at least in Hitler's mind, be subservient to those powers. The answer, Hitler states, is Lebensraum, land in the east, mainly at the expense of Russia. Any peace treaty with Russia would work against this aim, which is why most experts at the time were sure it would never happen.

If the pact was surprising for Hitler, it was even more surprising for Stalin. From the beginning of the Nazi regime, the Soviets had been making overtures towards Britain and France for an alliance against Hitler. Stalin was terrified of the Germans. British and French diplomats were in Moscow in July of 1939, trying to make this happen. Why it failed, and why world history completely changed in a matter of days, I will discuss in more detail later on.

 
Explain barrage balloons to me. I know they were to prevent low-level flight of enemy planes, but in the pictures I've seen of them deployed, it looks like you could just fly in amongst them.

 
Explain barrage balloons to me. I know they were to prevent low-level flight of enemy planes, but in the pictures I've seen of them deployed, it looks like you could just fly in amongst them.
With the primitive bomb sights, bombers needed to fly straight and level to have any hope of putting their bombs on target.
 
Huge WWII fan. I can watch almost anything on the subject. In fact, I just watched episode one of the History Channel's documentary,"D-DAY" via Netflix.

As much of a fan as I am, I know so little.

I will say it is the most interesting war of them all imo. Everything from the mass collective effort put forth by the allies, to the amazingly evil/cool uniforms the Germans wore, the weapons, everything.

One of the most intriguing aspects is the way everybody improvised on the fly. Just amazing if you really think about it.

 
Explain barrage balloons to me. I know they were to prevent low-level flight of enemy planes, but in the pictures I've seen of them deployed, it looks like you could just fly in amongst them.
We'll probably get to this more in detail next summer, when the Battle of Britain will hopefully be discussed in greater detail. From my limited understanding, the balloons had cables connected, and some had explosives. But they weren't really all that effective anyhow. There are greater reasons why the Germans did not attempt dive bombing against the British- the Stuka had a limited range that really didn't make it effective across the Channel.
 
Explain barrage balloons to me. I know they were to prevent low-level flight of enemy planes, but in the pictures I've seen of them deployed, it looks like you could just fly in amongst them.
With the primitive bomb sights, bombers needed to fly straight and level to have any hope of putting their bombs on target.
It's my understanding that they were never deployed above 1500 meters. Surely they had little effect on bombers. Or am I wrong?
 
:lmao: I feel I dont know enough about this and am interested in the read. Be sure to add what you know about Canadian perspective also.
 
Explain barrage balloons to me. I know they were to prevent low-level flight of enemy planes, but in the pictures I've seen of them deployed, it looks like you could just fly in amongst them.
With the primitive bomb sights, bombers needed to fly straight and level to have any hope of putting their bombs on target.
It's my understanding that they were never deployed above 1500 meters. Surely they had little effect on bombers. Or am I wrong?
The bombers had to fly at higher altitudes making them less effective. Without the balloons, the bombers could have come in at much lower levels.
 
Huge WWII fan. I can watch almost anything on the subject. In fact, I just watched episode one of the History Channel's documentary,"D-DAY" via Netflix.As much of a fan as I am, I know so little.I will say it is the most interesting war of them all imo. Everything from the mass collective effort put forth by the allies, to the amazingly evil/cool uniforms the Germans wore, the weapons, everything.One of the most intriguing aspects is the way everybody improvised on the fly. Just amazing if you really think about it.
:headbang:
 
The British and French Guarantee of Poland

In order to understand why the British and French attempts to reach a treaty with Russia failed, we first have to examine why they chose to guarantee the integrity of Poland, which led to the outbreak of the war in the first place. Like most actions of the western powers leading up to the war, it was an act of complete and utter ineptitude.

The year before, England and France could have gone to war with Czechoslovakia as allies. The Czechs had a fine small army, a mountain range separating it from Germany that would be difficult to conquer. The Czechs were on good terms with the Russians, and would likely have allowed Russian troops to help defend them. Finally, German generals have testified that Hitler would have been overthrown if he had tried to invade the Sudetenland (Northern Czechoslovakia). This last is questionable- who knows if the generals would have really revolted or would have been successful?

But Nevile Chamberlain, to his eternal shame, decided it would be better to negotiate with Hitler and give up the Sudetenland in return for a piece of paper in which Hitler promised not to invade the rest of Czechoslavkia. Chamberlain returned from the Munich Agreement as a great hero among the British people- they did not realize what he had given up for his temporary peace. In March of 1939, Hitler broke his agreement and invaded Prague, and occupied the rest of Czechoslavakia. Chamberlain was outraged, and in his anger he decided to guarantee Hitler's next target: Poland.

Unlike the Czechs, Poland was militarily indefensible. One reason it has been invaded at least a dozen times in it's chaotic history is that the land there is mostly flat. The rivers are easily crossable. Worse, the Poles were not only anti-German but incredibly anti-Russian as well. They refused to even consider the idea of Russian troops entering Poland to help defend them against the Germans. Which of course led to the first question the Russians asked the British and French delegations when they arrived in July, 1939- how to form an alliance, when the Poles won't even let the Russians help?

Chamberlain hated the Russians, didn't think their help was valuable at all, and only sent diplomats there because Parliament pressured him into it. Diplomatic papers released several years after the war reveal that his instructions were: go slow, refuse to answer any specific questions about the Poles, refuse to agree to anything that would commit British forces, reveal nothing about British troops. This is not the way to achieve an alliance!

 
The British and French Guarantee of Poland
Hold on. We're not going to discuss the Nazi-Soviet pact before we move on?
We absolutely are. But one is tied to the other. The verbal guarantee was given in April of 1939, and it's crucial to understand it in order to understand why the British and French attempts to reach an agreement with Russia in July of 1939 failed.
You've skipped quite a few important things already, such as the Anschluss of Austria, the Sudetenland, Memel, etc. I mean, if you really want to talk about WWII.

 
The British and French Guarantee of Poland
Hold on. We're not going to discuss the Nazi-Soviet pact before we move on?
We absolutely are. But one is tied to the other. The verbal guarantee was given in April of 1939, and it's crucial to understand it in order to understand why the British and French attempts to reach an agreement with Russia in July of 1939 failed.
You've skipped quite a few important things already, such as the Anschluss of Austria, the Sudetenland, Memel, etc. I mean, if you really want to talk about WWII.
I know, I know. But we have to start somewhere. I'm trying to match it to the month in question, which would be August of 1939.
 
The British and French Guarantee of Poland
Hold on. We're not going to discuss the Nazi-Soviet pact before we move on?
We absolutely are. But one is tied to the other. The verbal guarantee was given in April of 1939, and it's crucial to understand it in order to understand why the British and French attempts to reach an agreement with Russia in July of 1939 failed.
Maybe if we'd started back in 1938 with the Neville Chamberlain's rejection of an anti-fascist alliance, the Munich meeting & the annexation of the Sudetenland we'd have a better understanding of the Nazi-Soviet pact.
 
Explain barrage balloons to me. I know they were to prevent low-level flight of enemy planes, but in the pictures I've seen of them deployed, it looks like you could just fly in amongst them.
With the primitive bomb sights, bombers needed to fly straight and level to have any hope of putting their bombs on target.
It's my understanding that they were never deployed above 1500 meters. Surely they had little effect on bombers. Or am I wrong?
The bombers had to fly at higher altitudes making them less effective. Without the balloons, the bombers could have come in at much lower levels.
Wouldn't flying straight and level under 5000' make them sitting ducks for AA guns? I always assumed the balloons were for protection against dive bombers and strafing runs.
 
Explain barrage balloons to me. I know they were to prevent low-level flight of enemy planes, but in the pictures I've seen of them deployed, it looks like you could just fly in amongst them.
With the primitive bomb sights, bombers needed to fly straight and level to have any hope of putting their bombs on target.
It's my understanding that they were never deployed above 1500 meters. Surely they had little effect on bombers. Or am I wrong?
The bombers had to fly at higher altitudes making them less effective. Without the balloons, the bombers could have come in at much lower levels.
Wouldn't flying straight and level under 5000' make them sitting ducks for AA guns? I always assumed the balloons were for protection against dive bombers and strafing runs.
Exactly the opposite. The AA guns worked better at higher altitudes. It counteracted the speed of the planes and gave the AA crews time to properly aim.
 
The Nazi Soviet Pact, Part 2

Unlike the British, the French were on very good terms with the Russians, and the diplomats were told to answer any questions. But the Russians were more interested in the British. They asked both the French and the British the following question: Germany had 200 divisions to send against the east. The Russians had 300 divisions, but many of these were ill-equipped. How many divisions would the British and French put on the field of battle?

The French answered instantly: they had 100 divisions prepared to rush to the defense of Poland. This answer was disingenous. General Gamelin, the commander of the French army, had no intention of leaving his protection of the Maginot Line, even when Poland was attacked (much more on this later.)

The British at first refused to answer the question. But when pressed, they finally revealed the shabby state of the British Army: they could field 2 divisions now, and 2 more later. The Russians were unimpressed by this answer. Stalin was filled with disbelief; he then asked again if Britian and France would pressure Poland to accept Russian aid; if not, how could the Russians come to the defense of Poland? The British wired this question back to Whitehall and they were told: stall. Don't answer.

At this point Stalin had had enough. He decided that what Britain and France really wanted was for Hitler to invade Poland and then keep invading Russia. The western powers wouldn't lift a finger, and they would watch gleefully while the two dictatorships tore each other apart. (In fact, this may very well have been Chamberlain's unstated idea.) Stalin decided to turn the tables on the Allies by trying to reach an agreement with Hitler. This was a catastrophic move on his part, possibly the worst foreign policy decision in history, which I will attempt to argue later on.

 
The Nazi Soviet Pact, Part 2

Unlike the British, the French were on very good terms with the Russians, and the diplomats were told to answer any questions. But the Russians were more interested in the British. They asked both the French and the British the following question: Germany had 200 divisions to send against the east. The Russians had 300 divisions, but many of these were ill-equipped. How many divisions would the British and French put on the field of battle?

The French answered instantly: they had 100 divisions prepared to rush to the defense of Poland. This answer was disingenous. General Gamelin, the commander of the French army, had no intention of leaving his protection of the Maginot Line, even when Poland was attacked (much more on this later.)

The British at first refused to answer the question. But when pressed, they finally revealed the shabby state of the British Army: they could field 2 divisions now, and 2 more later. The Russians were unimpressed by this answer. Stalin was filled with disbelief; he then asked again if Britian and France would pressure Poland to accept Russian aid; if not, how could the Russians come to the defense of Poland? The British wired this question back to Whitehall and they were told: stall. Don't answer.

At this point Stalin had had enough. He decided that what Britain and France really wanted was for Hitler to invade Poland and then keep invading Russia. The western powers wouldn't lift a finger, and they would watch gleefully while the two dictatorships tore each other apart. (In fact, this may very well have been Chamberlain's unstated idea.) Stalin decided to turn the tables on the Allies by trying to reach an agreement with Hitler. This was a catastrophic move on his part, possibly the worst foreign policy decision in history, which I will attempt to argue later on.
:popcorn:
 
The Nazi Soviet Pact, Part 2

Unlike the British, the French were on very good terms with the Russians, and the diplomats were told to answer any questions. But the Russians were more interested in the British. They asked both the French and the British the following question: Germany had 200 divisions to send against the east. The Russians had 300 divisions, but many of these were ill-equipped. How many divisions would the British and French put on the field of battle?

The French answered instantly: they had 100 divisions prepared to rush to the defense of Poland. This answer was disingenous. General Gamelin, the commander of the French army, had no intention of leaving his protection of the Maginot Line, even when Poland was attacked (much more on this later.)

The British at first refused to answer the question. But when pressed, they finally revealed the shabby state of the British Army: they could field 2 divisions now, and 2 more later. The Russians were unimpressed by this answer. Stalin was filled with disbelief; he then asked again if Britian and France would pressure Poland to accept Russian aid; if not, how could the Russians come to the defense of Poland? The British wired this question back to Whitehall and they were told: stall. Don't answer.

At this point Stalin had had enough. He decided that what Britain and France really wanted was for Hitler to invade Poland and then keep invading Russia. The western powers wouldn't lift a finger, and they would watch gleefully while the two dictatorships tore each other apart. (In fact, this may very well have been Chamberlain's unstated idea.) Stalin decided to turn the tables on the Allies by trying to reach an agreement with Hitler. This was a catastrophic move on his part, possibly the worst foreign policy decision in history, which I will attempt to argue later on.
After debate, will you be changing your mind?
 
With the primitive bomb sights, bombers needed to fly straight and level to have any hope of putting their bombs on target.
It's my understanding that they were never deployed above 1500 meters. Surely they had little effect on bombers. Or am I wrong?
The bombers had to fly at higher altitudes making them less effective. Without the balloons, the bombers could have come in at much lower levels.
Wouldn't flying straight and level under 5000' make them sitting ducks for AA guns? I always assumed the balloons were for protection against dive bombers and strafing runs.
Exactly the opposite. The AA guns worked better at higher altitudes. It counteracted the speed of the planes and gave the AA crews time to properly aim.
So the balloons were used primarily to keep the bombers from flying low level... it really wasn't about discouraging dive bombers or fighters? I just want to be sure I follow you here.
 
After debate, will you be changing your mind?
One point deduction, low blow.I think he will change his mind. There's no way it can be the worst foreign policy decision in history when it got Stalin what he was looking for--time. But I'm looking forward to seeing him make his case.
 
The Nazi Soviet Pact, Part 2

Unlike the British, the French were on very good terms with the Russians, and the diplomats were told to answer any questions. But the Russians were more interested in the British. They asked both the French and the British the following question: Germany had 200 divisions to send against the east. The Russians had 300 divisions, but many of these were ill-equipped. How many divisions would the British and French put on the field of battle?

The French answered instantly: they had 100 divisions prepared to rush to the defense of Poland. This answer was disingenous. General Gamelin, the commander of the French army, had no intention of leaving his protection of the Maginot Line, even when Poland was attacked (much more on this later.)

The British at first refused to answer the question. But when pressed, they finally revealed the shabby state of the British Army: they could field 2 divisions now, and 2 more later. The Russians were unimpressed by this answer. Stalin was filled with disbelief; he then asked again if Britian and France would pressure Poland to accept Russian aid; if not, how could the Russians come to the defense of Poland? The British wired this question back to Whitehall and they were told: stall. Don't answer.

At this point Stalin had had enough. He decided that what Britain and France really wanted was for Hitler to invade Poland and then keep invading Russia. The western powers wouldn't lift a finger, and they would watch gleefully while the two dictatorships tore each other apart. (In fact, this may very well have been Chamberlain's unstated idea.) Stalin decided to turn the tables on the Allies by trying to reach an agreement with Hitler. This was a catastrophic move on his part, possibly the worst foreign policy decision in history, which I will attempt to argue later on.
After debate, will you be changing your mind?
Not this time. This is one debate I know both sides, in and out, and I definitely have my own opinion on it. We'll get to that.
 
So the balloons were used primarily to keep the bombers from flying low level... it really wasn't about discouraging dive bombers or fighters? I just want to be sure I follow you here.
Depends where the balloon was being used. The most famous use of the balloons was over British cities during the Blitz. That's exactly the reason they were used in those cases. On the other hand, they were also used over the Normandy beaches. And there they were used to keep fighters and dive bombers away from the ships and landing craft.
 
Brief interlude- The Soviet Purges 1936-1939

A short interlude here, in order to understand Stalin's thinking, we have to acknowledge that this greatest monster in world history (or second greatest, depending on your taste) was already in the full throes of an extreme paranoia. Between 1936 and 1939, right when the Nazi threat was growing the worst, he put about 90% of the officers of the Red Army on trial- the vast majority were innocent, but this did not save them. During what is now known as The Terror, no one was safe, no matter how high up. Stalin suspected everyone around him of treachery and had most of them executed. We still don't know the amount of people ultimately killed, but this in addition to the earlier collectivization of the Ukraine (which resulted in the deaths of somewhere between 10-20 million people) makes Joseph Stalin the greatest mass murderer in world history.

And by the time Stalin was deciding who to deal with, the Germans or the Brits, he had an army with an entirely new officer corp, with no military background or experience. During that same summer of 1939, Russia fought an unofficial war with Japan on the Manchurian border. The Japanese easily won battle after battle, and the Russians were inept.

 
:sadbanana: This could be interesting. Maybe you guys in the know could also give us references? Good books to read on each subject as you go along.
 
The Nazi Soviet Pact, Part 3

Meanwhile, Hitler was very concerned about the British/French/Russian talks. The one thing the Germans most concerned was a two front war. Ever since Prussia became a military power in the early 1800's, this had been the great bugaboo of German strategic thinking. Despite better technology and the advance of industrial warfare, the issue stated clearly by Clausewitz in his On War had not essentially changed: Germany would lose any war against an alliance of Britain, France, and Russia. She would be strangled because she simply did not have the population to handle this. During World War I, the German plan to avoid this was to conquer France quickly and have a holding action against the Russians. But this did not work, because the French stopped the Kaiser's troops on the Seine river short of Paris, and for the next four miserable years, the Germans were trapped in their great horror. Hitler swore this would not happen again. Though he had a new strategy to defeat the French (much much more on this in later months, hopefully) he could not be sure it would work. And he was unprepared to face a Russian/British/French alliance. In fact, had this alliance occurred, Hitler would never have attacked Poland, IMO. What the final result of the Nazi regime would be, I do not know. But the war would not have begun in September 1939.

Therefore, Hitler decided to swallow his hatred of Russia and offer a pact. He would give Stalin a "free hand" in Eastern Europe. They would divide Poland between them, and the Germans could then turn their full attention to Britain and France.

Was this a good deal for Hitler? Tactically, it was a great deal. In addition to not having to worry about Russia, he secured his main oil supply in Rumania (the Ploesti oil fields) and also reached a trade agreement in which badly needed goods would be delivered by the Soviets. General Guderian criticizes the agreement on the grounds that by giving Russia half of Poland, his tanks were unable to reach Moscow in the summer of 1941 (whereas if they had started on the eastern edge of Poland, they might have.) This critique by Guderian is the main historical criticism for Hitler's move.

Was this a good deal for Stalin? I'll deal with that in my next post.

 
Explain barrage balloons to me. I know they were to prevent low-level flight of enemy planes, but in the pictures I've seen of them deployed, it looks like you could just fly in amongst them.
We'll probably get to this more in detail next summer, when the Battle of Britain will hopefully be discussed in greater detail. From my limited understanding, the balloons had cables connected, and some had explosives. But they weren't really all that effective anyhow. There are greater reasons why the Germans did not attempt dive bombing against the British- the Stuka had a limited range that really didn't make it effective across the Channel.
The demise of the Stuka was more about the fact that it was a sitting duck without air superiority. Further, advances in anti-air mobile batteries caused great causalities. Basically, about mid way through the war the Stuka was just obsolete machines and were being replaced by ####e-Wulf Fw 190's for ground support.
 
The British and French Guarantee of Poland
Hold on. We're not going to discuss the Nazi-Soviet pact before we move on?
We absolutely are. But one is tied to the other. The verbal guarantee was given in April of 1939, and it's crucial to understand it in order to understand why the British and French attempts to reach an agreement with Russia in July of 1939 failed.
You've skipped quite a few important things already, such as the Anschluss of Austria, the Sudetenland, Memel, etc. I mean, if you really want to talk about WWII.
:goodposting: Although, IIRC, the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland were events before the Nazi-Soviet Pact.

 
The British and French Guarantee of Poland
Hold on. We're not going to discuss the Nazi-Soviet pact before we move on?
We absolutely are. But one is tied to the other. The verbal guarantee was given in April of 1939, and it's crucial to understand it in order to understand why the British and French attempts to reach an agreement with Russia in July of 1939 failed.
You've skipped quite a few important things already, such as the Anschluss of Austria, the Sudetenland, Memel, etc. I mean, if you really want to talk about WWII.
:goodposting: Although, IIRC, the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland were events before the Nazi-Soviet Pact.
Exactly.
 
The Nazi Soviet Pact Part 4

I shall now make my argument why Stalin's decision to reach a truce with Hitler was the worst foreign policy decision in world history. It's actually a very simple argument. Had Stalin read Mein Kampf or ever listened to Hitler's speeches, he would have realized that Hitler's ultimate goal was the destruction of Russia in order to make it a slave state for Germans to control. Apparently, Stalin did not understand this.

(On a side note, it's important to realize that Stalin's misunderstanding of Hitler contributed to the creation of the Third Reich in the first place. The German Communist party, on direct orders from Stalin in 1932, were instructed not to ally themselves with the Social Democrats, which might have stopped Hitler in his tracts. Marxist doctrine taught that fascism's rise meant the near destruction of capitalism and a Communist takeover. Had the Communists chosen to ally themselves with the Social Democrats, they might have stopped the Nazis from achieving power. But I digress.)

By agreeing to the Pact, Stalin allowed his best defense against the German threat, the French army, to be eliminated in a one front struggle while he watched and waited. When Germany invaded in 1941, Stalin was alone.

Now, the opposing argument is that Stalin improved his army in the two year hiatus. More importantly, he improved his strategic position by occupying the southern part of Finland (although this would prove to be very costly) and the Baltic states. But during the time gained by Stalin for these accomplishments, he lost much more than he gained. The Germany that attacked Russia in June of 1941 was much more powerful than the Germany that attacked Poland in 1939. By 1941 they controlled nearly all of Europe, had better weapons, and most importantly did not have any troops to their west to worry about. The result was the near destruction of Russia- the Russians survived 1941 by an extremely thin margin. They were lucky.

My conclusion is that Stalin should have swallowed his frustration and agreed to a deal with Britain and France. The excuse that he needed Poland's compliance really makes no sense; all he had to do was state that, even without Poland's compliance, Russia would come to her aid in the event of German invasion, and this would have stopped Germany in her tracks. Stalin broke the one rule central to a great power's foreign policy: you cannot allow another great power to approach your borders. America has always understood this; hence the Monroe Doctrine. China has always understood this; hence her intervention in Japan's attack of Korea in 1590 and America's invasion of North Korea in 1950. But Stalin did not understand it, and the eventual result was catastrophe.

 
In addition to Sea Bass, if any of you have family personal stories, it would be great to hear them.

My grandfather on my mother's side worked at Lockheed all during the war as a purchasing agent. My other grandfather was a concentration camp survivor.

My wife's grandfather served in the United States Navy aboard the US Lexington and survived being sunk in the Coral Sea. I also have a great uncle who was captured on Bataan and survived the Death March.

 
My dad was a radio operator on several ships in the Pacific theater. He told me repeatedly that without the nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, that he would have been part of the invasion force of Japan.

 
One of the interesting sidelights of the Nazi Soviet Pact, was its effect on the American Left. The American liberals, who hated Hitler, became staunchly pacifist and rejected any idea of the US entering the war in Europe. Then, of course, when Nazi Germany invaded Russia, they pulled off an abrupt volte face, and began to argue strongly for US involvement.

 
Here is Stalin's speech to the Politburo on August 19, 1939, defending the Nazi Soviet Pact:

The question of war and peace has entered a critical phase for us. Its solution depends entirely on the position which will be taken by the Soviet Union. We are absolutely convinced that if we conclude a mutual assistance pact with France and Great Britain, Germany will back off from Poland and seek a modus vivendi with the Western Powers. War would be avoided, but further events could prove dangerous for the USSR.

On the other hand, if we accept Germany's proposal, that you know, and conclude a non-aggression pact with her, she will certainly invade Poland, and the intervention of France and England is then unavoidable. Western Europe would be subjected to serious upheavals and disorder. In this case we will have a great opportunity to stay out of the conflict, and we could plan the opportune time for us to enter the war.

The experience of the last 20 years has shown that in peacetime the Communist movement is never strong enough for the Bolshevik Party to seize power. The dictatorship of such a Party will only become possible as the result of a major war.

Our choice is clear. We must accept the German proposal and, with a refusal, politely send the Anglo-French mission home.

It is not difficult to envisage the importance which we would obtain in this way of proceeding. It is obvious, for us, that Poland will be destroyed even before England and France are able to come to her assistance. In this case Germany will cede to us a part of Poland… Our immediate advantage will be to take Poland all the way to the gates of Warsaw, as well as Ukrainian Galicia.

Germany grants us full freedom of action in the Pribaltic/three Baltic States and recognizes our claim on Bessarabia. She is prepared to acknowledge our interests in Romania Bulgaria and Hungary.

Yugoslavia remains an open question, the solution of which depends on the position taken by Italy. If Italy remains at the sides of Germany, then the latter will require that Yugoslavia be understood as her zone of influence, and it is also by Yugoslavia that she will obtain access to the Adriatic Sea. But if Italy does not go with Germany, then the latter will depend on Italy for her access to the Adriatic Sea, and in this case Yugoslavia will pass into our sphere of influence.

This in case that Germany would emerge victorious from the war. We must, however, envisage the possibilities that will result from the defeat as well as from the victory of Germany. In case of her defeat, a Sovietization of Germany will unavoidably occur and a Communist government will be created. We should not forget that a Sovietized Germany would bring about great danger, if this Sovietization is the result of German defeat in a transient war. England and France will still be strong enough to seize Berlin and to destroy a Soviet Germany. We would be unable to come effectually to her assistance/to the aid of our Bolshevik comrades in Germany.

Therefore, our goal is that Germany should carry out the war as long as possible so that England and France grow weary and become exhausted to such a degree that they are no longer in a position to put down a Sovietized Germany.

Our position is this. Maintaining neutrality and waiting for the right time, the USSR will presently assist Germany economically and supply her with raw materials and provisions. It goes without saying that our assistance should not exceed a certain limit; we must not send so much as to weaken our economy or the power of our army.

At the same time we must carry on active Communist propaganda in the Anglo-French bloc, and predominantly in France. We must expect that in that country in times of war, the Party should quit the legal means of warfare and turn underground. We know that their work will demand much money/great sacrifices, but we must agree without hesitating to these sacrifices/our French comrades will not hesitate. Their first task will be to decompose and demoralize the army and the police. If this preparatory work is fulfilled properly, the safety of Soviet Germany will be assured, and this will contribute to the Sovietization of France.

For the realization of these plans it is essential that the war continue for as long as possible, and all forces, which we have available in Western Europe and the Balkans, should be directed toward this goal.

Now let us consider the second possibility, a German victory. Some think that this would confront us with a serious danger. There is some truth in this, but it would be a mistake to regard the danger as so close at hand or as great as has been proposed.

If Germany should prove to be victorious, she will leave the war too weakened to start a war with the USSR within a decade at least. She will have to supervise the occupation of France and England and to prevent their restoration/restore herself.

In addition, a victorious Germany will have vast colonies/territories; the exploitation of those and their adaptation to German methods will also absorb Germany during several decades.

Obviously, this Germany will be too busy elsewhere to turn against us. There is one additional thing that will strengthen our safety. In a conquered France, the French Communist Party will always be very strong. A Communist revolution will unavoidably break out, and we will be able to exploit the situation and to come to the aid of France and make her our ally. In addition, all the nations that fall under the "protection" of a victorious Germany will become our allies. This presents for us a broad field of action for the initiation of world revolution.

Comrades, I have presented my considerations to you. I repeat that it is in the interest of the USSR, the workers' homeland that a war breaks out between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. It is essential for us/Everything should be done so that it drags out as long as possible with the goal of weakening both sides. For this reason, it is imperative that we agree to conclude the pact proposed by Germany, and then work in such a way that this war, once it is declared, will be prolonged maximally. We must strengthen our economic/propaganda work in the belligerent countries, in order to be prepared when the war ends.

 
In addition to Sea Bass, if any of you have family personal stories, it would be great to hear them.

My grandfather on my mother's side worked at Lockheed all during the war as a purchasing agent. My other grandfather was a concentration camp survivor.

My wife's grandfather served in the United States Navy aboard the US Lexington and survived being sunk in the Coral Sea. I also have a great uncle who was captured on Bataan and survived the Death March.
My uncle went ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day +2. He was an MP. He survived the war, came home, and was killed in a farm accident a year or so before I was born.
 
One of the interesting sidelights of the Nazi Soviet Pact, was its effect on the American Left. The American liberals, who hated Hitler, became staunchly pacifist and rejected any idea of the US entering the war in Europe. Then, of course, when Nazi Germany invaded Russia, they pulled off an abrupt volte face, and began to argue strongly for US involvement.
Yep. On a different date, we'll have to discuss the American reaction to the first two years of the war in great detail, including the American Left. I will note for now that what you point out here was the majority opinion, but not universal. Granville Hicks and many others resigned from the Communist party in protest over the Pact. And of course the Socialists led by Norman Thomas had no love for Soviet Russia anyhow, and pushed for American intervention much earlier.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top