PDA

View Full Version : Germany and Russia pact?!?



texhill88
07-31-2006, 02:33 PM
In early 1941 russia and germany sealed a pact of economic agreement in the aggrement russia would send germany oil products,grain,rubber,manganese,chromium, and other industrial raw materials. In return germany would send german machine tools to re- equip the soviet unions out of date factories. So why would germany attack russia when russia was helping them so much??

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

texhill88
07-31-2006, 02:33 PM
In early 1941 russia and germany sealed a pact of economic agreement in the aggrement russia would send germany oil products,grain,rubber,manganese,chromium, and other industrial raw materials. In return germany would send german machine tools to re- equip the soviet unions out of date factories. So why would germany attack russia when russia was helping them so much??

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

russ.nl
07-31-2006, 02:52 PM
What I know of the pact is the agreement of land. Russia would get the east of Poland and everything beond that and Germany the west. But I gues hitler wanted more "lebensraum".

danjama
07-31-2006, 02:52 PM
Why would Hitler invade Poland after the treaty of Versaille?

Bearcat99
07-31-2006, 03:01 PM
Hitler was an over confident megalomaniacal buffoon?

I mean since we are tossing out possibilities here.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Hitler actually thought that the invasion of Russia would be a done deal in a few months..... They were supposed to be beaten by the winter. Fortunately for the world Germany broke the pact and we never got a Russo/German/Sino/Italian axis to have to deal with. We probably wouldnt have anyway... but then again.... in January of 41 no one thought Russia and Germany would be at war in 6 months either.

SeaFireLIV
07-31-2006, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by texhill88:
In early 1941 russia and germany sealed a pact of economic agreement in the aggrement russia would send germany oil products,grain,rubber,manganese,chromium, and other industrial raw materials. In return germany would send german machine tools to re- equip the soviet unions out of date factories. So why would germany attack russia when russia was helping them so much??

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read the history books or watch a documentary.

Hitler only made the pact to keep the Russians quiet. He was always afraid that while he took on the West and England that Russia might just attack him.

Hitler only made the pact for safety`s sake and time sake. He HATED the Russians and his entire philosophy was to eventually destroy them. He couldn`t care less about the economic advantage. It`s obvious because communism and fascism were such opposing idealogies, even people in the period were amazed when they heard of the agreement.

Soon as he could Hitler attacked.

Always beware sworn enemies who suddenly make Pacts with you.

VW-IceFire
07-31-2006, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by texhill88:
In early 1941 russia and germany sealed a pact of economic agreement in the aggrement russia would send germany oil products,grain,rubber,manganese,chromium, and other industrial raw materials. In return germany would send german machine tools to re- equip the soviet unions out of date factories. So why would germany attack russia when russia was helping them so much??

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The short answer is Nazi philosophy dictated that the German race needed more room to grow and prosper and be the strongest race. As eastern europe was still relatively sparsely populated at the time they wanted to displace the non Germans from good land and push them off. If that meant crushing a country you formerly had a non-agression pact with...no problem.

Once you get into the underlying causes of WWII you tend to find alot of it has to do with the Nazi worldview and their own screwed up view of Darwin's survival of the fittest theories.

StG2_Schlachter
07-31-2006, 05:19 PM
Don't forget the treaty of Versailles and the events that lead to it. Including the German victory over France in 1870/1871.

NekoReaperman
07-31-2006, 05:32 PM
yea, too many people forget the impact of the 19th century on the politics of WW1 and 2

russ.nl
07-31-2006, 05:48 PM
How will it be in WW3 then?

Previously on "The world is mine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif"

Germany tried to take over the world 3 times in less then a century and failed.

But maybe they will succeed a foreth time! No one will see that comming. And what impact will the 19th AND 20eth century have on the outbrake of ww3?

Stay tuned


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif No offence intended to the German community. It's not your fould.

Treetop64
07-31-2006, 08:10 PM
Along with all of the "lebensraum" points already made in this thread, there is another caveat that some, I'm sure, are not aware of:

Hilter actually wanted an alliance with Great Britain in the years before the war. Indeed, he admired the British and - significantly - their empire. He was impressed by the fact that so relatively few held command over much of the world, and felt that the reich could learn from this example. From the beginning he had originally intended to colonize western Russia, just as the British had colonized India.

It was how he dealt with the Czecks (sp.?) that unravelled his hopes of avoiding a war with GB. At first he sucessfully brokered a deal with Chamberlain that he would only annex the German speaking border regions of Czekoslovakia (sp. again?), but his further incursions into that country changed everything.

Faced with these new political circumstances (further aggrivated by his eventual move into Poland), and as purely a matter of convenience for him, he struck the now famous non-aggression pact with Stalin.

The rest, as they say, is history...

blakduk
07-31-2006, 08:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by texhill88:
In early 1941 russia and germany sealed a pact of economic agreement in the aggrement russia would send germany oil products,grain,rubber,manganese,chromium, and other industrial raw materials. In return germany would send german machine tools to re- equip the soviet unions out of date factories. So why would germany attack russia when russia was helping them so much??

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you been watching the BBC TV series 'The World At War'?
They described a version of this pact just the way you did. It is an oversimplification of the situation at the time. It's an excellent TV series but at times it needs to look in more depth at the situations.
The strategy the Nazis had in place was to knock the western European forces out of the war so they could concentrate on taking out the Soviets in the East. The real intention wasnt to invade Britain but to conquer the Russian empire- there was a deep visceral hatred of Communism among the Nazis as well as a very strong fear of them.
Stalin was gearing toward taking on the Germans when he had completed his reformation of the Red Army- a process that was gathering pace in '41. Both the Soviets and the Nazis knew this and were outbluffing each other- Stalin assumed he was so ahead of the game that he ignored the warnings sent to him on the eve of Barbarossa.
The non-aggression pact was basically a stalling tactic by both sides. They were both preparing for a confrontation and Hitler went first- well before Stalin was ready and also well before the Wermacht was ready. Adolf wanted to fight the war in the east rather than await a Soviet invasion.
Hitler was a gambler and his gamble nearly paid off.
The Nazis didnt believe the Western allies would make serious attempts to assist the Soviets- and neither did the Soviets. The Nazis read the political climate in the major western powers as being more anti-communist than anti-nazi. As with many of the interpretations of the German high command at the time, they thought they knew their enemy but were deluding themselves. It's quite interesting to read how little the Nazis understood of how a liberal democracy actually functioned. They mistook vocal debate about the merits of facism (by Mosley in the UK) and isolationism/defacto facism (by such people as Lindbergh in the US) as strong indications that both those countries wouldnt commit to a war against them.

PBNA-Boosher
07-31-2006, 11:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by russ.nl:
How will it be in WW3 then?

Previously on "The world is mine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif"

Germany tried to take over the world 3 times in less then a century and failed.

But maybe they will succeed a foreth time! No one will see that comming. And what impact will the 19th AND 20eth century have on the outbrake of ww3?

Stay tuned


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif No offence intended to the German community. It's not your fould. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt it. For some unknown reason country vs. country just isn't fashionable anymore. I have a feeling that the next world war will be disguised as a religious war, when in reality, it's for control of oil... oh wait, aren't we in the beginning stages of that now?

Kocur_
07-31-2006, 11:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by texhill88:
In early 1941 russia and germany (...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not early, but late, not 1941 but August 1939.

Genie-
08-01-2006, 01:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by texhill88:
....So why would germany attack russia when russia was helping them so much??

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read.

I450IVex
08-01-2006, 01:58 AM
it's not the first time oil has been a major contributer to a war.

Cutting through other reasons, Japan needed oil to fight China, that the US was stopping them having. The germans needed Russian oil from the caucuses. not to mention the whole Baku affair between germany and russia in WW1

You can't fight a war without it,
he who controls the oil keep the wheels moving. so to speak.

russ.nl
08-01-2006, 02:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by russ.nl:
How will it be in WW3 then?

Previously on "The world is mine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif"

Germany tried to take over the world 3 times in less then a century and failed.

But maybe they will succeed a foreth time! No one will see that comming. And what impact will the 19th AND 20eth century have on the outbrake of ww3?

Stay tuned


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif No offence intended to the German community. It's not your fould. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I doubt it. For some unknown reason country vs. country just isn't fashionable anymore. I have a feeling that the next world war will be disguised as a religious war, when in reality, it's for control of oil... oh wait, aren't we in the beginning stages of that now? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know how in retrospect people always say that they could have seen a war comming. They didn't because it is a build up of sepperate incidans. Humanity is not ready yet for world peace as long as we do not learn from our past. History is repeting itself.

JG52Karaya-X
08-01-2006, 03:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by russ.nl:
How will it be in WW3 then?

Previously on "The world is mine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif"

Germany tried to take over the world 3 times in less then a century and failed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You might want to read up on WWI http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

WOLFMondo
08-01-2006, 03:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by I450IVex:
it's not the first time oil has been a major contributer to a war.

Cutting through other reasons, Japan needed oil to fight China, that the US was stopping them having. The germans needed Russian oil from the caucuses. not to mention the whole Baku affair between germany and russia in WW1

You can't fight a war without it,
he who controls the oil keep the wheels moving. so to speak. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its why the British had to fight in North Africa and the Middle East to protect the oil and the Suez Canal. It was the life line of the UK during the early stages of the war.

flakwagen
08-01-2006, 05:17 AM
I think the USSR would've attacked first if Hitler had waited long enough. Hitler jumped the gun, and squandered Germany's chance to be seen as an innocent victim. Stalin and Roosevelt were smarter.

Flak

NIK__14
08-01-2006, 06:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by russ.nl:

You know how in retrospect people always say that they could have seen a war comming. They didn't because it is a build up of sepperate incidans. Humanity is not ready yet for world peace as long as we do not learn from our past. History is repeting itself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How true...look at the world now...dunno bout y áll but to me there are some clear parallells between Germany/Italy of 1939-1940 and todays USA/Isreal.....

No disrespect to anyone just my view of things..
Peace..

JG5_UnKle
08-01-2006, 06:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flakwagen:
I think the USSR would've attacked first if Hitler had waited long enough. Hitler jumped the gun, and squandered Germany's chance to be seen as an innocent victim. Stalin and Roosevelt were smarter.

Flak </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stalin was a fricken Moron, he wasn't smarter.

It took him nearly 3 days to accept he was under attack...

ImpStarDuece
08-01-2006, 07:42 AM
I can think of a LOT of (rather choice) terms for Stalin, but moronic isn't one of them.

Stalin, and most of the Soviet High Command, wilfully decieved themselves that Germany wasn't going to attack. While the generals had something definite to do when Germany attacked, Stalin retreated completely from public life for around 10 days, apparently convinced that he was going to be executed by the Party (in continuance with is own murderous policies) for letting the Germans invade.

As for the potential invasion of Western Europe by the Soviets, I think by 1940 they had realised that A) Germany was too heavily armed to fight directly B) Poland was in the way anyway C) there were better and easier pickings in Scandanavia, the Balkans and the Far East and D) after Finland the Red Army realisesd just how badly it was lagging behind in terms of tactics and equipment. Most of the post Finland restructuring (particularly in armour and artillery) would of been going on well into 1942. Even against Poland there were a few nasty suprises.

There were Soviet plans for the invasion of western Europe. But thats not saying that much really. Canada used to keep invasion plans of the USA ready during the 20s and 30s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ned7777
08-01-2006, 07:58 AM
ok look at the facts crazy dictators never manage to win wars look at the facts
Sadam failed to properly comand armys in iran-iraq war
Hitler HE WAS ASLEEP ON MOST OF D-DAY and due to his crazy fevor he would have to give athorization for troop movements
Stalin was told the day, month and time of day of operation barbarossa and failed to act
dictators can rule but can not fight with the exeption of castro

triad773
08-01-2006, 08:55 AM
Yes it is interesting the way 19th century history had a way of continuing to the 20th. Hitler failed to learn from Napoleon's failures. Renown are the tails of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. I beleive that Hitler thought that the technology of the day would sweep them from success to success. Arrogance it is, his belief that he was more savvy then Napoleon: and in a strange twist, Napoleon learnt many a lesson from Fredrick the Great. At least Fredrick knew when to stop: a capital asset when you have your eyes on expanding your territory.

SeaFireLIV
08-01-2006, 10:09 AM
Hitler should have read the book of Sun Tzu, then he would`ve thought twice about attacking. And even after that he wouldn`t have `hobbled` his Generals so much by back-seat driving for them.

Thankfully, he didn`t. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOLFMondo
08-01-2006, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:

Stalin, and most of the Soviet High Command, wilfully decieved themselves that Germany wasn't going to attack. While the generals had something definite to do when Germany attacked, Stalin retreated completely from public life for around 10 days, apparently convinced that he was going to be executed by the Party (in continuance with is own murderous policies) for letting the Germans invade. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you read Robert Services biography on Stalin? He writes a very good chapter on exactly that but puts forward several reasons for his retreat although everyone was too scared to actually act without Stalins approval on the matter. He created such a system that Stalin had to be in control, if he wasn't there the system fell flat on its face. They simply couldn't kill him cause everyone was too scared of him and what he would do to them if he discovered a plot.

carguy_
08-01-2006, 01:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by flakwagen:
I think the USSR would've attacked first if Hitler had waited long enough. Hitler jumped the gun, and squandered Germany's chance to be seen as an innocent victim. Stalin and Roosevelt were smarter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Germany`s chance to be seen as a victim already was very slim after 1940.Also,waiting to see what happens is IMO the worst thing one could do.

Remember that Hitler just months ago beat France and kicked GB out of Europe.All in all his perspective was very optimistic.Communism and nazism could never be friends.Hitler came to power fighting with communism.

Also the western military was always viewed as highly superior to Russian.Additionally Soviet army basically had no chain of command.Lost wars with Japan in 1905 and Poland in 1920 made the picture clear.Hitler was dead certain if he could do what he did before 1941,he could destroy USSR just aswell.He had information,he had weapons,morale.
It is clear that after end of 1940 nobody dared to call Hitler an idiot after such achievements.


Unfortunately(for Germany),USSR was Hitler`s obsession.

DuxCorvan
08-01-2006, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
Germany`s chance to be seen as a victim already was very slim after 1940.Also,waiting to see what happens is IMO the worst thing one could do. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Macchiavelli: "Wars can't be avoided, only delayed to favour an enemy who grows stronger..."

Chamberlain and all the 'appeasement' guys learned that the hard way.

Aaron_GT
08-01-2006, 04:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Chamberlain and all the 'appeasement' guys learned that the hard way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think Chamberlain gets a raw deal, as he did declare war on Germany in the end and was PM during the UK's rearmament. British military power in the 1920s was somewhat concerned with the needs of colonialism than force projection into central Europe, so it was a big shift from 1933-39.