Final-Fan said:
Samus Aran said:
Final-Fan said:
He invaded Russia because both sides were planning to betray the other. Hitler got to it first, that's all. |
I know Hitler would have attacked the Soviet Union eventually(or the other way around) as communists and fascists are arch rivals. But it still doesn't make much sense from a strategic point of view, at least not so soon. It would have been better for Hitler to wait after the western front was over. If Germany defeated Great Britain before the USA had finished mobilising their troops(which was certainly possible) then US intervention would have been totally useless since troops would not be able to enter "Festung Europa". And lets be honest here, Germany could totally handle the USA on its own(and Hitler would probably have never attacked the USA directly as it would be too far away to control).
Even if Germany would have been weakened by the war they could still defend pretty easily from Russia. I've never seen Russia as a strong power till after world war II I guess. Sure they can defend, but when they attack its everything except impressive(Russian-Japanese wars, Caucasus wars, Napoleonic wars outside Russia(Austerlitz for example), Crimean war, etc.)
edit: I quoted the wrong post, sorry.
|
Well, let me start by saying it wasn't just communism vs. fascism per se. Communists IIRC consider it almost a holy duty to expand the franchise globally by hook or by crook; and Germans -- especially the military -- hated communism because of their failed revolution in Germany in 1919.
I'm not sure what kind of timetable you're looking at for Germany defeating Great Britain, but I don't think it would have happened before Stalin invaded. And despite the eventual failure, Germany's initial results were so devastating that I find it hard to believe that simply defending would have been more beneficial.
Also, you didn't mention Finland. Sure, they won, but it took so long it was embarrassing.
P.S. I'm pretty skeptical of the stuff you said re: USA, but it's going a bit astray to debate that IMO.
|
I was told that Stalin's strategy was that he'd attack Germany after they have been weakened by the war. I guess we'll never know for sure what Stalin would have done if Hitler respected the non-aggression pact longer. And I'm aware of the communist revolution in 1919 and the weakness of the government to act against all these coup d'etats or repressing the ones that caused them, but I can't possibly list every reason, or I could write whole pages of it(I have actually written 140 pages from 1789 till the 1950s for an assignment).
And yes, I didn't mention Finland, that was embarrassing as well lol. They also won the Caucasus wars, but it took them so long and so much trouble that it was embarrassing as hell.
And yeah thread is derailed, but how much discussion can there be over who lost the Vietnam war? It's pretty clear that the US failed to meet their objectives in Vietnam. Korea is a different story, that war was won(or it was a draw, but North Korea was the first to invade south Korea and failed) even though the north remained communist. They also lost the war on Cuba even though they never attacked Cuba directly, they did support a Cuban invasion force however, but they didn't support them enough(which is probably why Kennedy got assassinated, by angry Cubans that were against communism in Cuba. But my knowledge is fuzzy about that subject.)
assassinated
