A perspective on Hitler's motivations

[heydaralon]

I get that Poland hated the shit out of Russia, more than Germany and they refused Russian protection (which would have led to their direct absorption into the Soviet Union I guess) on the eve of the Invasion. Lets say the Poles had taken Russia up on its protection offer before Hitler made a deal with Russia to carve them up. How would that have changed the course of the war. The invasion of Poland was the spark that led Britain to get involved. If Poland was directly backed by Russia, how would Hitler have acted? If he did still invade, do we have British involvement?

Well, the Poles were banking on Britain and France, forlorn hope perhaps, but they had no illusions about Stalin and the Soviets, if the Soviets had invaded Poland unilaterally however, the war could have gone in a completely different direction, with Britain and France siding with Hitler against Stalin, which is exactly why Stalin didn't do that, and instead baited Hitler into to doing it, setting him on a collision course with Britain and France instead.

lol there is no scenario where Poland comes out unscathed. They were pieces of shit too though. They aided and abetted Hitler in taking territory and took some of Sudetenland for themselves.

[GloryofGreece]

Not doubting that Stalin had "plans" and did horrible things. But I think Hitler was the instigator, sometimes the occums razor approach or the "standard" version is the real version. Alternative history that is interesting to ponder for me is whether Hitler and a unified Europe (say Britain and America stays out totally) could conquer Russia proper and it territories? (Japan stay out to for this scenario)

I'm not even trying to make a moral equivalency between the two, and as you say "plans" is kind of nebulous. I'm of the opinion that Stalin would have tried to take whatever he could hold. His past behavior supports this, although Icebreaker may be a reach, as I don't know how much evidence is there.

As to your other question about a unified Nazi ruled Europe conquering Russia, I still doubt it. You might be interested in this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destructio ... estruction

It's not quite what you are looking for, but it takes quite a bit out of air out of the idea that Hitler's longterm goals were sustainable. It focuses on economics, so it can get boring as fuck if you are like me and you hate economics. You might enjoy it though.

I read the sypnosis and some reviews. Seems like a thorough economic analysis but a real slough. Hats off if you read it.

[Smitty-48]

lol there is no scenario where Poland comes out unscathed. They were pieces of shit too though. They aided and abetted Hitler in taking territory and took some of Sudetenland for themselves.

Ah, well, we Hanoverians do not denegrate the Poles, because not only did the ones who escaped fight valiantly for us, they did one extremely important thing; they told us all about Enigma, Ultra, starts with the Poles, they laid the groundwork, which Turing & Co then built upon.

[GloryofGreece]

Fair enough, never claimed to be a military expert. Here is a question I have for you though:
In one of Anthony Beevor's books the dude says that the soviet forces did not have much food, fuel, or logistics set up. For an invasion like that to work, there would need to be huge supply lines because an army of that size would run out of all of those quickly. If Stalin was planning an invasion, why didn't he have any of those key pieces in place? How far was he planning on getting without oil or food? Apparently a lot of Stalin's superior tank numbers was a mirage too, because many of them were inoperable come Barbarossa. They did not seem to be ready at all.

Yes, well, Suvorov goes over it, point by point, to show that Beevor doesn't know what he's talking about, and in fact the Soviets were massed, and ready to attack, and fully stocked, and had the better kit as well, and how the Germans actually took advantage of all that, after they encircled the Soviets and then plundered all their kit and stores to be repurposed to Barbarossa.

This may not be a question you can answer, but if there is academic politics at play in suppressing the true Soviet 1941 intentions, who benefits? The soviet union has been defeated, and before that we hated the shit out of them for half a century. This sort of revisionism would be wildly popular in America. What motive in academia would they have for suppressing the truth?

Yeah, I don't this as real suppression of their intentions, b/c like you said we had a ideological and Cold War with them for 50 years so wouldn't we want to blame them to? We sure as shit don't want to talk about the Russian colossus being a main reason why Nazism was defeated. We want to emphasize lend lease , american jeeps etc. and the Battle of the Bulge for god sake and not the Osfront. and how that war was the biggest "war" of all time taken alone.

[heydaralon]

Not doubting that Stalin had "plans" and did horrible things. But I think Hitler was the instigator, sometimes the occums razor approach or the "standard" version is the real version. Alternative history that is interesting to ponder for me is whether Hitler and a unified Europe (say Britain and America stays out totally) could conquer Russia proper and it territories? (Japan stay out to for this scenario)

I'm not even trying to make a moral equivalency between the two, and as you say "plans" is kind of nebulous. I'm of the opinion that Stalin would have tried to take whatever he could hold. His past behavior supports this, although Icebreaker may be a reach, as I don't know how much evidence is there.

As to your other question about a unified Nazi ruled Europe conquering Russia, I still doubt it. You might be interested in this book:
https://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destructio ... estruction

It's not quite what you are looking for, but it takes quite a bit out of air out of the idea that Hitler's longterm goals were sustainable. It focuses on economics, so it can get boring as fuck if you are like me and you hate economics. You might enjoy it though.

I read the sypnosis and some reviews. Seems like a thorough economic analysis but a real slough. Hats off if you read it.

Skip all dose charts and shit. It talks about Germany's production capabilities. They were nothing to sneeze at, but the British's were a lot higher than most people realize. Hitler was the luckiest son of a bitch in the world to defeat France, because paired with Britain and then add Russia, he would have been down for the count.

[GloryofGreece]

In hindsight its similar in some ways to the American Civil War. It shouldn't really be surprising that the Confederacy lost , its surprising they did as well as they did and lasted 4 years.

[TheReal_ND]

Most people I've heard, that actually study it, say they could have did better by far but it was still like a one and three chance.

[GloryofGreece]

Great book on Stalin, looking forward to this volume since its really when things atributed to Stalin directly start getting at it.
https://www.amazon.com/Stalin-Waiting-1 ... rds=stalin

Good exchange and entertainment between Kotkin and Zizek on Stalin. And some of the shit we've been talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9voDV_ZsB8

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Who can say why they do what they do.

That would be the military commissariat.

*spits* *makes sign of cross*

Gypsies!

[Okeefenokee]

Plus, they're a bunch of fickle, untrustworthy gypsies. Who can say why they do what they do.