World War II.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-07-2016, 01:42 PM
RE: World War II.
(01-07-2016 01:30 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 01:09 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Just imagine where they would have been without the brain drain and forced remilitarisation!


In better situation I suppose.

An evolution of the cultural, scientific, and economic superpower they were shaping up to be in the 1920s, that's what.

(01-07-2016 01:30 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
Quote: The gear-up for Barbarossa was pretty much just based on looting Czechoslovakia, France, and Netherlands dry.

Without relevant books I can't comment on this.

Machine tools and stockpiles - let alone manpower - without which the armies that set out June 1941 would have been impossible.

(01-07-2016 01:30 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
Quote: Entirely ideological.


Strategic calculation also played a role in this.

In the sense that the Soviets were building up from a low point ~1940 and any delay would mean an even harder fight? Yes.

In the sense that puppet states and annexations from Spain to Poland to Greece somehow weren't enough "living space"? Not so much...

(01-07-2016 01:30 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
Quote: Sane leadership would never have invaded - but then, they wouldn't have started any war period. 'Sane' and 'Nazi' are definitionally opposed.

Nazis were as sane as Soviets. Sanity and insanity is matter of interpretation, just look for GULag, which is either product of paranoid dictator or rational attempt to colonize remote regions pf the country.

Or both!

I think, however, that post-revolution Soviet leadership (not limited to Stalin) was fundamentally more pragmatic than ideological ('socialism in one country' being an obvious example) - although to be sure notwithstanding the personal quirks of Stalin himself, which even so were rooted in personal paranoia and at best appropriated classical Marxist terminology as window dressing, rather than base motivation.
(the collectivisation and resulting chaos and famine in the 1930s was a political ploy far more than an ideologically motivated one, as far as I understand it, for one)

The Nazi leadership put ideology before reality to a level not surpassed until the Khmer Rouge.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
01-07-2016, 01:46 PM
RE: World War II.
Please, no spoilers. I still reading the book. Angry
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 02:27 PM
RE: World War II.
(01-07-2016 01:42 PM)cjlr Wrote:  An evolution of the cultural, scientific, and economic superpower they were shaping up to be in the 1920s, that's what.


Superpower? Germany probably would be in better shape but beyond that nothing much can be said with any certainty.

Quote: Machine tools and stockpiles - let alone manpower - without which the armies that set out June 1941 would have been impossible.


I remember Roger Moorhouse sriting something on the subject in his "Devil's Alliance" bit specifics I can't recall.

Quote:In the sense that the Soviets were building up from a low point ~1940 and any delay would mean an even harder fight? Yes.

Was it really low point? Soviet army was powerfull and purges weren't so damaging as people commonly think.

Quote: In the sense that puppet states and annexations from Spain to Poland to Greece somehow weren't enough "living space"? Not so much...


If I'm not mistaken without resources pf USSR Reich wouldn't be really self sufficient.

Stephen Fritz in earlier mentioned "Ostkrieg" is making a good case for Nazis being more pragmatic that is usually thought.

Quote: Or both!

I think, however, that post-revolution Soviet leadership (not limited to Stalin) was fundamentally more pragmatic than ideological ('socialism in one country' being an obvious example) - although to be sure notwithstanding the personal quirks of Stalin himself, which even so were rooted in personal paranoia and at best appropriated classical Marxist terminology as window dressing, rather than base motivation.


Depends on how you interpret terror and such decissions as abolishing 7 day week (R. Pipes, "Bolsheviks Russia"). I think ideology and pragmatism were more or less equal, or Soviets were rational within framework of their ideology.

Martin Malia wrote a good book on the subject (more or less)" The Soviet Tragedy".

Quote: (the collectivisation and resulting chaos and famine in the 1930s was a political ploy far more than an ideologically motivated one, as far as I understand it, for one)


I think it is another case of ideology and politics mixing but I can't call your interpretation wrong.

Quote: The Nazi leadership put ideology before reality to a level not surpassed until the Khmer Rouge.
Again it depend. Both Aly (Hitler's Beneficiaries) and Fritz (Ostkrieg) made Nazis more rational. Kitchen (The Third Reich) see nazism as a madness.

Newer books are more in favor of rationality judging from a small sample of subject literature I read.


Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: