What's new

When Hitler "refused" to defeat Britain

There are in fact VERY reliable reports indicating that the Soviets intended to do to Germany EXACTLY what they did to Japan in August 1945, that is back stab the Germans when they were at their weakest, just as Japan in August 1945 too was at its weakest
Which is what all the other parties also intended to do...

See e.g. Battles of Khalkhin Gol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Two days after the Eastern Front of World War II broke out, the Japanese army and navy leaders adopted on 24 June 1941 a resolution "not intervening in German Soviet war for the time being". In August 1941, Japan and the Soviet Union reaffirmed their neutrality pact.[50] Since the European colonial powers were weakening and suffering early defeats in the war with Germany, coupled with their embargoes on Japan (especially of vital oil) in the second half of 1941, Japan's focus was ultimately focused on the south, and led to its decision to launch the attack on Pearl Harbor, on 7 December that year. Despite plans being carried out for a potential war against the USSR (particularly contingent on German advances towards Moscow), the Japanese would never launch an offensive against the Soviet Union. In 1941, the two countries signed agreements respecting the borders of Mongolia and Manchukuo[51] and pledging neutrality towards each other.[52] In the closing months of World War II, the Soviet Union would quit the Neutrality Pact and invade the Japanese territories in Manchuria, Korea, and the southern part of Sakhalin island.

Even if Stalin planned to do the above, this doesn't mean he masterminded WW2. There simply are too many factors not under his control.

Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact | Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing - eBooks | Read eBooks online

Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
II. AGREEMENT ACHIEVED, AUGUST 14-AUGUST 23,1939
II. AGREEMENT ACHIEVED, AUGUST 14-AUGUST 23,1939

Same wording Germany-Russia pact and Russia-Japan pact > standard clause
It actually leaves open the termination date in case of denounciation in the last year

Further, on treaties:
Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
.
Dude, first of all, It does not matter if UK attack German's Civilian first, just because the UK does it, it does not mean Germany need to follow. Bringing up who start what first does not even matter

I expected more competence from a "professional".

Your line of thought is sick to say the least but that line was followed in the Nuremberg trials. If nazis were tried for killing civilians like he allied propaganda said, why the hell were the allies not tried for war crimes? Bringing up who started it DOES MATTER because the silly excuse given by allies is that nazis are bad because hey started the war.

Second of all. IT IS SOLID FACT that the fight is OVER BRITAIN not over Germany, ipso facto GERMANY NEED TO FIGHT IN BRITISH SPACE. The Fact that RAF cannot touch Germany Industry is again, not related to the facts, as I already assume the replacement rate is the same between RAF and Luftwaffe. The recovery rate is different. As it is simply fighting INSIDE ENGLAND, RAF would have a recovery rate of ABOVE ZERO, while the Luftwaffe would have a recover rate of ABSOLUTE ZERO, since you fight on a hostile territories, any airmen you lost over Britain will be capture or killed by the RAF. Ipso Facto, Germany would have a faster rate of decline than the British, unless you can prove the German's production can re-balance that recovery rate, arguing British cannot touch German's industrial zone only make the situation equal, not in favour to.

Again spoken like a man with limited knowledge.

Wars are fought to defeat enemy. RAF would have had to take the fight to German air space if they wanted to win. Are you really a military professional because you sound like a loser.

The allies had to invade Germany because that was the only way to defeat them. Germans started full war-time production around 1944. If the Luftwaffe had suck to their original plan and continued atacking RAF bases then the RAF would have been plastered. It was precisely why RAF atacked civilians - to enrage Luftwaffe and make them change tactics.

USAF and RAF combined to launch 1000 bomber air raids into Germany and those raids accounted for 90% casualties - PER RAID. The Luftwaffe lost air superiority but it was still hell getting air raids inside German territory. And you have the stupidity to claim that RAF would have been able to attack German industries at 1940-41?

Without attacking German industries he Germans would have kept pumping out aircraft, weapons and other war machinery UNHINDERED. And any novice knows that without taking out the war-time production facilities of the enemy a war CANNOT be won.

That is precisely why the allied bomber command repeatedly sent bomber raids into Germany despite suffering heavy losses. Just how educated are you man?

It's a waste of my time to talk to you lol, loser will always bark louder when confronted with facts.

Instead of wasting time on internet if you had studied harder you would have been employed in a better position in the military instead of serving their as a cook. Your knowledge on military is worse than a civilian's, loser. So better luck next time.

Really? Says who? You?

Don't quote allied propaganda.

German U-boat designs were used by he allies viz. USA to design their nuclear submarines. You just have a huge chip on your shoulder for what the nazis did to ducth. So your opinion lacks merit.

Did you consider that German bombers could not REACH some portions of British industry.... t least not with a meaning full bomb load? Whereas the Brits could reach well into Germany, notably Ruhr area, with heavies.

Did you consider that even with the Luftwaffe pracically out of commision the Allied bomber force suffered HEAVY CASUALTIES in EVERY raid they took?

In theory IAF jets in 2015 can also reach US bases in Asia, successfully atacking them and returning is a different story.

RAF reach is moot when in reality they would have been slaughtered. PLANE FOR PLANE, PILOT FOR PILOT Luftwaffe WAS BETTER. Just search for Hartmann.
 
.
I expected more competence from a "professional".

Your line of thought is sick to say the least but that line was followed in the Nuremberg trials. If nazis were tried for killing civilians like he allied propaganda said, why the hell were the allies not tried for war crimes? Bringing up who started it DOES MATTER because the silly excuse given by allies is that nazis are bad because hey started the war.

Excuse me but it seems like I am talking to a mentally retarded person.

The topic is Battle of Dunkirk and Battle of Britain. And how Hitler refused to win both battle and knock England out of the war.

What does the topic have to do with Nuremburg Trial and the trail of war crime on Germany?

How those have anything related to the topic at hand? And if it is just some sort of ramdom point, why not talk about A-Bomb??

lol, are you serious?

Again spoken like a man with limited knowledge.

Wars are fought to defeat enemy. RAF would have had to take the fight to German air space if they wanted to win. Are you really a military professional because you sound like a loser.

The allies had to invade Germany because that was the only way to defeat them. Germans started full war-time production around 1944. If the Luftwaffe had suck to their original plan and continued atacking RAF bases then the RAF would have been plastered. It was precisely why RAF atacked civilians - to enrage Luftwaffe and make them change tactics.

USAF and RAF combined to launch 1000 bomber air raids into Germany and those raids accounted for 90% casualties - PER RAID. The Luftwaffe lost air superiority but it was still hell getting air raids inside German territory. And you have the stupidity to claim that RAF would have been able to attack German industries at 1940-41?

Without attacking German industries he Germans would have kept pumping out aircraft, weapons and other war machinery UNHINDERED. And any novice knows that without taking out the war-time production facilities of the enemy a war CANNOT be won.

That is precisely why the allied bomber command repeatedly sent bomber raids into Germany despite suffering heavy losses. Just how educated are you man?

Instead of wasting time on internet if you had studied harder you would have been employed in a better position in the military instead of serving their as a cook. Your knowledge on military is worse than a civilian's, loser. So better luck next time.

Again, are you mentally troubled? We are not talking about how RAF defeated Germany in the Summer of 1944, we are talking about how Germany refused to win at both Battle of Britain and Dunkirk to knock the Brits out of the war.

What RAF have to win the war have NO RELATION on how Hitler decide to fight in both battle?

And again, if Allied decided to bomb Dresden or Hamburg, must Hitler follow suit?
What you are saying is German lost the battle because British start bombing the City first, then they switch to bombing British City, that's like saying Mo Ali lose because it allow the enemy fake a right hook and he fall for it, you know how ridiculous it sounded?

Oh and yeah, British don't have industry to replace their lost fighter and only Germany have the capacity to replace the losses. Dude, I wonder have you actually know the meaning of the word "Attrition" to begin with.

While you "Point" all being personal attack (Saying how stupid I am and how uneducated I am) and bring out points that have nothing to do with both battle and yet did not actually rebuff my point om war of Attrition and how German can out produce the British to stay in the game.

lol, it looks like You are the one who should study some history, not me.

LOL, it sounded like I am talking to a child in special need class. You simply just a moron aren't ya?
 
.
This is not history, as History does not happened that way. Hitler decided to hit Civilian Population, that's is the history.

What I said was according to physical limit and from common sense, if you have anything to challenge what I said, please do go ahead, blame it on Winner writes history is in another word, means you are simply doing a loser talk.

Lool ahahahahahhahah....m...You dont know Indian patriot yet?? he is someone even Indians on here have distanced themselves from. To think you have been arguing with him :lol:

He is very anti british still bitter because we colonised and ruled India. So everything to him should be bashing Britain, if you think you can talk some sense to him, im afraid you are fooling yourself. He wont listen. :rofl:
so you better discuss with other more impartial members here bro. :cheers: Im sorry for warning you late, i know you wasted alot of your precious time trying to convince him. in sorry. :(
 
Last edited:
.
Lool ahahahahahhahah....m...You dont know Indian patriot yet?? he is someone even Indians on here have distanced themselves from. To think you have been arguing with him :lol:

He is very anti british still bitter because we colonised and ruled India. So everything to him should be bashing Britain, if you think you can talk some sense to him, im afraid you are fooling yourself. He wont listen. :rofl:
so you better discuss with other more impartial members here bro. :cheers: Im sorry for warning you late, i know you wasted alot of your precious time trying to convince him. in sorry. :(

You know my Grandpa was in the British Indian Army ! :D

He saved your English butt from Der Fuhrer ! :mad:

Even though he was posted away from the front as an engineer ! :oops:
 
.
@jhungary

Do heed to Mikeisback's advice, my friend!
I was myself helped by proper Indian posters as I attempted to have a meaningful discussion
with your "opponent". They explained how it was useless to expect any sense coming from him.

I'm now transferring that advice to you. Check his negative ratings for an idea of how little meaning
or how much drivel is common fare out of that person.

Good day to both and all, Tay.
 
.
Which is what all the other parties also intended to do...

See e.g. Battles of Khalkhin Gol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Even if Stalin planned to do the above, this doesn't mean he masterminded WW2. There simply are too many factors not under his control.

Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact | Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing - eBooks | Read eBooks online

Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
II. AGREEMENT ACHIEVED, AUGUST 14-AUGUST 23,1939
II. AGREEMENT ACHIEVED, AUGUST 14-AUGUST 23,1939

Same wording Germany-Russia pact and Russia-Japan pact > standard clause
It actually leaves open the termination date in case of denounciation in the last year

Further, on treaties:
Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Okay so im glad we agree that Stalin planned to violate the non-aggression pact and thus forced Hitler to preempt him by launching Barbarossa.


Even if Stalin planned to do the above, this doesn't mean he masterminded WW2.
Stalin knew that Germany would not invade Poland if he did not sign a nonaggression pact with Hitler. Thus by signing a nonaggression pact with Hitler he gave Germany the green light to invade Poland, causing Britain and France to declare war on Germany, thereby plunging the entire European continent into war.

And he didn't stop there, he fed Hitler's war machine with valuable raw materials like copper, nickel, oil, timber, vanadium, chrome, wheat, etc... Without Stalin's assistance Hitler would not have been able to occupy Belgium, Holland, Greece, France, Yugoslavia, Norway, Denmark, and the other countries which came under German occupation. Stalin was deliberately assisting Hitler in spreading the war.

If Stalin had instead told the Germans "no, we will not sign a nonaggression pact with Fascists and we will not allow you to invade Poland" WW2 would not have taken place because in 1939 Hitler did not have the resources to fight Poland+England and France and the Soviet Union (that is if Stalin had not signed nonaggression pact with Hitler). So yes, Stalin did mastermind WW2, though he did not expect the Soviet Union to be forced into the war at a time not of his own choosing.

Suvorov's books worth reading only if you like fantasy or so-called "alternative history".
To find some real history in his books as difficult as finding a giraffe in Antarctica.
Strictly for fans of conspiracy theories.
So you're telling me that your Stalin was never in bed with the "Fascists"??

Why was your Stalin cooperating with Hitler?? Why did he destroy Poland, the only buffer state between Soviet Union and Nazi Germany??

Look at your "Comrade" Stalin with the Fascist Joachim Ribbentrop, smiling from excitement after dividing Poland:

c_looks_filmproduktionen_gmbh_-_ribbentrop_und_stalin_moskau_1939_copy[1].jpg




Stalin's signature on map of Divided Poland

Mapa_2_paktu_Ribbentrop-Mołotow[1].gif




Just look at how excited "Comrade" Stalin was from his massive signature.
He just could not conceal his excitement for starting WW2:


bf089391449b67387fd3e1db9f48eb98[1].jpg


@Psychic @persona_non_grata @Serpentine
 
Last edited:
.
So you're telling me that your Stalin was never in bed with the "Fascists"??

Why was your Stalin cooperating with Hitler?? Why did he destroy Poland, the only buffer state between Soviet Union and Nazi Germany??

Look at your "Comrade" Stalin with the Fascists, smiling from excitement after dividing Poland:

View attachment 250149



Stalin's signature on map of Divided Poland

View attachment 250150



Just look at how excited "Comrade" Stalin was from his massive signature
he couldn't conceal his excitement for starting WW2:


View attachment 250157
Stalin several years tried to create an anti-Hitler coalition in Europe. Stalin was the only one who has not participated in the Munich Agreement. He was the one who suggested to Czechoslovakia military assistance against aggression.
All countries in Europe have had an agreements with Hitler. Including Poland. Poland partisipated in the partition of Czechoslovakia.
When Stalin realized that Western Europeans are not going to create an alliance with him, he signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler.
 
.
When Stalin realized that Western Europeans are not going to create an alliance with him, he signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler.
That's not true my friend.

Britain and France approached Stalin in 1939 to form anti-German coalition. But your Stalin dismissed the British and French delegation and invited the Nazi delegation to divide Poland.

In 1939 Germany could not attack Soviet Union, France, Britain, Belgium, Holland, Greece, Yugoslavia, Denmark, Norway. So why Stalin dismiss English & French delegation? Why did he accept Nazi delegation? Germany was weak in 1939 and would have backed off Poland if Stalin did not make nonaggression pact with Hitler. Why did Stalin dismantle Poland which was a buffer between Soviet Union and Nazi Germany?





Here is a speech from your Stalin:

"The question of war or peace has entered a critical phase for us. 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 down the road events could become dangerous for the USSR. If we accept Germany's proposal and conclude a non-aggression pact with her, she will of course invade Poland, and the intervention of France and England in that would be unavoidable. Western Europe would be subjected to serious upheavals and disorder. Under those conditions, we would 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 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 politely send the Anglo-French mission home. Our immediate advantage will be to take Poland to the gates of Warsaw, as well as Ukrainian Galicia ...


"For the realization of these plans it is essential that the war continue for a long as possible, and all forces, with which we are actively involved, should be directed toward this goal ...


"Let us consider a second possibility, that is, a victory by Germany... It is obvious that Germany will be too occupied elsewhere to turn against us. In a conquered France, the French Communist Party will be very strong. The Communist revolution will break out unavoidably, and we will be able to fully exploit this situation to come to the aid of France and make it our ally. In addition, all the nations that fall under the "protection" of a victorious Germany will also become our allies. This presents for us a broad field of action in which to develop the world revolution.


"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR -- the workers' homeland -- that war breaks out between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French block. Everything should be done so that this 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 that this war, which will one day be declared, is carried out after the greatest possible passage of time..."
- Excerpt from Joseph Stalin's August, 1939 speech to his inner circle


andy_z5[1].gif


Punch-Communism-Fascism-Cartoons-1941-03-12-255[1].jpg
 
Last edited:
.
That's not true my friend.

Britain and France approached Stalin in 1939 to form anti-German coalition. But your Stalin dismissed the British and French delegation and invited the Nazi delegation to divide Poland.

In 1939 Germany could not attack Soviet Union, France, Britain, Belgium, Holland, Greece, Yugoslavia, Denmark, Norway. So why Stalin dismiss English & French delegation? Why did he accept Nazi delegation? Germany was weak in 1939 and would have backed off Poland if Stalin did not make nonaggression pact with Hitler. Why did Stalin dismantle Poland which was a buffer between Soviet Union and Nazi Germany?





Here is a speech from your Stalin:

"The question of war or peace has entered a critical phase for us. 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 down the road events could become dangerous for the USSR. If we accept Germany's proposal and conclude a non-aggression pact with her, she will of course invade Poland, and the intervention of France and England in that would be unavoidable. Western Europe would be subjected to serious upheavals and disorder. Under those conditions, we would 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 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 politely send the Anglo-French mission home. Our immediate advantage will be to take Poland to the gates of Warsaw, as well as Ukrainian Galicia ...


"For the realization of these plans it is essential that the war continue for a long as possible, and all forces, with which we are actively involved, should be directed toward this goal ...


"Let us consider a second possibility, that is, a victory by Germany... It is obvious that Germany will be too occupied elsewhere to turn against us. In a conquered France, the French Communist Party will be very strong. The Communist revolution will break out unavoidably, and we will be able to fully exploit this situation to come to the aid of France and make it our ally. In addition, all the nations that fall under the "protection" of a victorious Germany will also become our allies. This presents for us a broad field of action in which to develop the world revolution.


"Comrades! It is in the interest of the USSR -- the workers' homeland -- that war breaks out between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French block. Everything should be done so that this 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 that this war, which will one day be declared, is carried out after the greatest possible passage of time..."
- Excerpt from Joseph Stalin's August, 1939 speech to his inner circle
World War II began not with the partition of Poland, but with the division of Czechoslovakia. Incidentally, the Polish head Beck was a nationalist, he participated in the division with Hitler, occupied Cieszyn region.
The USSR was the only country who did not support the agreement of Poland, England and France with Hitler. Up to the conclusion of a non-aggression pact with Hitler, Stalin tried to create an anti-fascist alliance with France and Britain.
There was a real detective story. The French and the British in every way delayed the conclusion of Alliance. They or sent ambassadors of too low grade, or sent ambassadors by the low-speed ship (although at the time the diplomats have long used aircrafts). They wanted Hitler attacked Poland, and went on to attack the Soviet Union.
When Stalin gave up on trying to create an anti-fascist alliance, he turned to Hitler. Otherwise, he risked the possibility of creation of anti-Soviet treaty between Britain, France and Germany.
Those two years have made it possible to strengthen the army. If not for these two years, 100% of the USSR would lose the war. Especially, while the original plans of Britain and France realized, the USSR would have had to fight on 2 fronts against Germany and Japan.
 
.
World War II began not with the partition of Poland, but with the division of Czechoslovakia. Incidentally, the Polish head Beck was a nationalist, he participated in the division with Hitler, occupied Cieszyn region.
The USSR was the only country who did not support the agreement of Poland, England and France with Hitler. Up to the conclusion of a non-aggression pact with Hitler, Stalin tried to create an anti-fascist alliance with France and Britain.
There was a real detective story. The French and the British in every way delayed the conclusion of Alliance. They or sent ambassadors of too low grade, or sent ambassadors by the low-speed ship (although at the time the diplomats have long used aircrafts). They wanted Hitler attacked Poland, and went on to attack the Soviet Union.
When Stalin gave up on trying to create an anti-fascist alliance, he turned to Hitler. Otherwise, he risked the possibility of creation of anti-Soviet treaty between Britain, France and Germany.
Those two years have made it possible to strengthen the army. If not for these two years, 100% of the USSR would lose the war. Especially, while the original plans of Britain and France realized, the USSR would have had to fight on 2 fronts against Germany and Japan.
There is no evidence to prove your claim that Britain and France would have formed an alliance with Hitler against Soviet Union because they opposed Hitler's regime from the outset. They imposed trade restrictions on Germany for taking Austria and for violating the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. But even here, your claim proves my point that Stalin wanted a war between Germany, Britain, and France (a World War) so he could later on enter the war at a time of his own choosing and takeover Europe.

Here's what im getting at:

Hitler wanted to invade Poland in 1939.

Britain said no.

France said no.

But Stalin said yes?

If Stalin had said no, there would be no WW2 and Britain, France, & Germany would not fight each other. But Stalin said yes to Hitler because Stalin wanted war between Germany, Britain, & France (a World War).


In 1939, Hitler's military was weak.

Stalin's military was strong. Britain's military was strong, France's military was strong. So how was Stalin afraid of Hitler in 1939? He wasn't. He was using Hitler to start WW2.

Why did Stalin help to dismantle Poland which was the only buffer state between Soviet Union and Germany?
 
Last edited:
.
There is no evidence to prove your claim that Britain and France would have formed an alliance with Hitler against Soviet Union because they opposed Hitler's regime from the outset. They imposed trade restrictions on Germany for taking Austria and for violating the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. But even here, your claim proves my point that Stalin wanted a war between Germany, Britain, and France (a World War) so he could later on enter the war at a time of his own choosing and takeover Europe.

Here's what im getting at:

Hitler wanted to invade Poland in 1939.

Britain said no.

France said no.

But Stalin said yes?

If Stalin had said no, there would be no WW2.


In 1939, Hitler's military was weak.

Stalin's military was strong. Britain's military was strong, France's military was strong. So why was Stalin afraid of Hitler in 1939?

Why did Stalin help to dismantle Poland which was the only buffer state between Soviet Union and Germany?
Poland was already a manifestation of the war, not its beginning. The beginning of the war was the division of Czechoslovakia by agreement of England, France, Germany and Poland.
Czechoslovakia has significantly strengthened the industrial power of the Reich.
The Soviet army in 1939 was weak. There were no tanks T-34, KV-2, most of planes was obsolete.
I read the story of Stalin's attempt to negotiate with Britain and France in 1939 and to prevent further agressiion of Hitler. Western countries strongly and consciously delayed the negotiations.
Remember the "Phoney War"?. France and England till many months did not provide active fighting against Hitler. And Hitler hoped to conclude an agreement with them.
 
.
Poland was already a manifestation of the war, not its beginning. The beginning of the war was the division of Czechoslovakia by agreement of England, France, Germany and Poland.
Czechoslovakia has significantly strengthened the industrial power of the Reich.
The Soviet army in 1939 was weak. There were no tanks T-34, KV-2, most of planes was obsolete.
I read the story of Stalin's attempt to negotiate with Britain and France in 1939 and to prevent further agressiion of Hitler. Western countries strongly and consciously delayed the negotiations.
Remember the "Phoney War"?. France and England till many months did not provide active fighting against Hitler. And Hitler hoped to conclude an agreement with them.
In 1938, when Czechoslovakia was dismembered there was no declaration of war by any country. So how can you say WW2 started in 1938?

Secondly, the Soviet Army in 1939 was not weak. Do you remember Battle of Khalkin Gol? So called "weak" Soviet Army defeated the Japanese 6th army in a matter of weeks. The Soviet Army was an offensive army in 1939-1941 with the best tanks in the world. The KV-1 was operational in 1939. No other country, not even Germany, had such a offensive tank.

Stalin didn't need the alliance of Britain and France to stop Hitler, Stalin could have done to Germans what he did to Japan at Khalkhin Gol.

Regarding the "Phoney War", yes that was a period of hesitation because France, Britain, and Germany were not prepared to fight each other, their militaries were mobilizing in that period.
 
Last edited:
.
In 1938, when Czechoslovakia was dismembered there was no declaration of war by any country. So how can you say WW2 started in 1938?

Secondly, the Soviet Army in 1939 was not weak. Do you remember Battle of Khalkin Gol? So called "weak" Soviet Army defeated the Japanese 6th army in a matter of weeks. The Soviet Army was an offensive army in 1939-1941 with the best tanks in the world. The KV-1 was operational in 1939. No other country, not even Germany, had such a offensive tank.

Stalin didn't need the alliance of Britain and France to stop Hitler, Stalin could have done to Germans what he did to Japan at Khalkhin Gol.

Regarding the "Phoney War", yes that was a period of hesitation because France, Britain, and Germany were not prepared to fight each other, their militaries were mobilizing in that period.
Mobilizing for a few months? Hmm ...
They were not at real war, because there were secret negotiations, Hitler's attempts to make peace with the rest of the West. Hitler was an Anglophile and admirer of Britain. He did not want war with Britain. He just wanted to be recognized as an equal with the rest ot the West.
The victory over Japan was not so simple. If fights were close to the sea, for example, in Primorye, Japanese would have had every chance to win. The Japanese surrendered in large part precisely because Hitler made a pact with Stalin. Thus, the idea of a war against the Soviet Union on 2 fronts loses its meaning, and the Japanese could not afford a full-fledged war against the Soviet Union and China.
KV-1 was adopted in December 1939. T-34 was not yet at all.
Airplanes of the Soviet Unionare were inferior to German planes in the early stages of the war.
The British gave Hitler the whole of Europe almost without a fight, with the sole purpose - for Hitler to attack the USSR. Thus, the Anglo-Saxons eliminated 2 potential competitors, like in WW!. Hitler was a fool, that embodied the plans of the Anglo-Saxons in life.
 
.
Mobilizing for a few months? Hmm ...
They were not at real war, because there were secret negotiations, Hitler's attempts to make peace with the rest of the West. Hitler was an Anglophile and admirer of Britain. He did not want war with Britain. He just wanted to be recognized as an equal with the rest ot the West.

Then how come Britain rejected Hitler's peace offers? Can you tell me why Britain did not allow Hitler to occupy Poland but Stalin did allow Hitler to invade Poland?

If there were secret negotiations between Nazi Germany and Western powers to overthrow the Soviet Union then why Britain did not accept Hitler's peace offers between 1939-1941??

Yes, i agree, Hitler was an Anglophile, but does that change the fact that Britain still rejected his peace offers? No, it doesn't.

The victory over Japan was not so simple. If fights were close to the sea, for example, in Primorye, Japanese would have had every chance to win. The Japanese surrendered in large part precisely because Hitler made a pact with Stalin. Thus, the idea of a war against the Soviet Union on 2 fronts loses its meaning, and the Japanese could not afford a full-fledged war against the Soviet Union and China..
But we are talking about land forces. Soviet land forces were superior to any other in the world, including Germany's.

Secondly, the Hitler-Stalin pact was signed after the Japanese were defeated at Khalkhin Gol. So therefore the Hitler-Stalin pact did not play any role in the Japanese defeat.

Soviet Red Army was an offensive army, superior to any other army in 1939-1941:

XHh9Zy9[1].png


Look at the massive casualties Soviet
inflicted on the Japanese 6th Army:

Tkh5yEO[1].png


Battles of Khalkhin Gol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


KV-1 was adopted in December 1939. T-34 was not yet at all.
Even if KV-1 was adopted in December 1939, no other country still had a comparable tank. Germany didn't have a comparable tank until late 1942.

Secondly, regarding the T-34, even if the Red Army didn't receive the T-34 until 1941, does that change the fact that no other country had an equivalent of such a advanced offensive warfare weapon? In 1941 Germany did not have a single tank comparable to the T-34.

Even if the Red Army didn't receive T-34's until 1941, they still had thousands of the BT-7's and T-26 tanks which were superior to 80% of the tanks the Germans had.


In 1941, the most common Soviet Tank was the BT-7:

bt-7-later-fast-tank-01[1].png

In 1941 the most common German tank was the Panzer 1:

Panzer_1[1].jpg

Airplanes of the Soviet Unionare were inferior to German planes in the early stages of the war.

Rather, on the contrary they were superior to anything the Luftwaffe had:

The Soviet Su-2 attack plane was superior to the Stuka. The Luftwaffe had nothing comparable.

In 1939, The Soviets had the TB-3 heavy bomber, the Germans had no heavy bomber at all.

In 1939, The Soviets had the DB-3 bomber, the Germans had nothing comparable. In June, 1941 alone, the Soviet air force had 1,846 DB-3Fs bombers, more than the number of all types of bombers Hitler attacked the Soviet Union with.

In 1939, the Soviet air force had the Er-2 bomber with range of 4,000 km, the Luftwaffe had nothing comparable. In fact, until the end of the war the Germans had nothing comparable to this air plane.

And the Soviets also had other new model aircraft like the Pe-2's, Mig-3's, Yak-1's, LaGG-3's, Ar-2, Er-2, Pe-8, Yak-2, Yak-4, and Il-4.

These were all superior or equal to anything the German Luftwaffe had between 1939-1941 and in most cases even till the end of the war the Luftwaffe had nothing comparable to most of these aircraft, not even the rest of the world had anything comparable to these air crafts up till the end of WW2. So how can you say Soviet air force was inferior?



The British gave Hitler the whole of Europe almost without a fight, with the sole purpose - for Hitler to attack the USSR. Thus, the Anglo-Saxons eliminated 2 potential competitors, like in WW!. Hitler was a fool, that embodied the plans of the Anglo-Saxons in life.

But if the British wanted to eliminate two potential competitors then why did they send financial and military support to the Soviet Union? Why did Britain and USA send billions of dollars worth of food stuffs and military equipment to save Stalin from defeat?
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom