Comments by "Not Today" (@nottoday3817) on "Did Stalin seek a Separate Peace with Hitler in WW2? | TIK Q&A 21" video.

  1. you realise the communists also care about their men right? Even more than other nations since they have economic plans to fullfil, plans which won't happen if more people die
    2
  2. I could answer that for you: Yeah, they could have had a meteorite strike Moskow or something like that. IT's a bloody world war. No single decision will result in total failure and success. Hitlers mistake was trusting too much in his generals who hoped USSR would be like a second France, yielding after a short fight and having key areas threatened. This meant that they had ignored Hitlers plans for a south-north push and amassed massive forces into the center to push for Moskow. This meant great success because most Soviet Forces were concentrated in the south (because stalin knew Hitler needed food and oil and that's where he could find it). Now, if Hitler would have taken charge and continued with his actual south push plan, he would have made more serious resistance. This meant either more soviet formations to encircle or much higher casualities. To answer your second part, Japan attacking from the east. This is highly unlikely since in 1939 Soviets crushed the Japanese army in there and the Japanese land forces did not receive much of an update compared to that time (budget was relocated to Navy and Air Force, desire to push for southwards expansion etc.). But lets just assume it did happen. Soviets always had like 1-2 million men there, with a minor exception from late 1941 to 1942. Yeah, if they attacked it might have been a disaster for the Soviets. But they did not, because they had their own problems
    2
  3. Ok. Perhaps I should actually start writing some articles on this, and rather soon, so I do not have to type the same thing over and over again. I sense some historic revisionism, the bad kind, here. 'Soviets and Germans were allies in 1939'? Why were they allies? I mean, as far as I remember, the soviets were not invading France, nor fighting against Brits. If Ribentropp-Molotov makes you say 'Hey, they were allies', then the same arguments must tell you 'Germany and The West were allies (or super/mega allies) from 1930/1 to 1938. Actually, one could say they were allies up to the invasion of France, because those guys basically took no offensive action despite having all the reasons and possibilities to do so. They allowed, through the United Nations resolutions, for Germany to start remilitarising, they offered public support, they offered The 1936 Olimpic Games, industrialists offered donations to Hitler, they offered loans which were pumped into the German economy and war machine. And, in 1938 they offered Czechoslovakia and Austria. Czechoslovakia had a defensive treaty with France AND USSR. But for USSR to do anything about it, France HAD TO GIVE ITS CONSENT. France and UK gifted the nation to Hitler instead. On the other hand, Relationships between USSR and Germany broke down after Hitler came to power because the Comintern wanted to use the national-socialists to start 'the revolution' in Germany, but it was the other way around. Later, they fought a proxy war in Spain. Again, great powers did nothing, allowing for a fascist victory. Soo, you, as a Soviet leader, are faced with a German nation, whose leader publicly called for your extermination and have two options: Go to war with the said nation and risk allowing the much bigger power (who are your public enemy nomero uno) to come after you when you are weakened, or strike a deal with said nation, which would allow you to get invaluable technology and buy time to make your army ready for war? Best case scenario, those suckers kill each other and you might even get some benefits from the fallout. Worst case scenario, one of them obtains a hard earned victory and you would be ready to counter them. (Of course, who would expect France, biggest land army in the world to capitulate in 1 month) Again, without the hindsight of the Fall of France. What in the world would you pick? Instant suicidal war or preparation with huge benefits? Second thing. All this Lend-Lease second front I keep hearing TIK mentioning. Ok. This 'supposed' conversation took place in 1942. Now, let's diverge a bit. What's Lend Lease? Well, there are not 1, not 2, but actually 3 (THREE) Lend Lease agreements. First is signed 'from the start' between Britain and USSR. Soviets get some planes, tanks and pilots for training. This is 1941. The second one, which is the obvious one and the biggest one, yet people still seem to ignore it, was US-UK [/British Empire] Lend Lease. Roughly 60%(from what I remember) of US Lend Lease contribution went to Britain. And the 3rd is the US-USSR Lend Lease. However, we return to the 'conversation', that was 1942/1943. US Lend Lease aid was still small at that stage compared to the 30-40% percent mentioned above. And Convoy ships were still blown out of the water. Sooo, again, let's look at this . US-UK helped the soviets by patching up the holes, but, in hindisght, would not be enough for another 8 months at least and now, Roosevelt, whose nation barely faced the Germans, says if they cut the barely suficient aid for the next year, they would be somehow able to pull tens of thousands of troops, vehicles and military doctrines and training for the troops, as well as shipping them to Europe in less than a few months. And again, the americans barely faced the Germans. Germans, which with a joke of a force compared to the Eastern front, trashed the British Army in North Africa, a front which was won only because the Germans had to transport their supplies over the sea. Now. As A SOVIET OFFICIAL, you think of it:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!soo, those guys who had little battle experience and whose closest reliable source of info is another army trashed by the Germans in Battleaxe and Crusader and who only obtained victory due to logistical superiority while fighting a force much smaller and poorly equiped than what we face are going to attack the mainland Europe, with much more German troops, german fortifications, shorter german supply lines and supply lines that cannot actually be sunk. Hmm, they don't seem to have very high chances of success. THEY WANT THE ONLY THING HELPING US WIN THE WAR TO TRY THIS UNTHINKABLE PIECE OF CRAP? We are gambling a ton of silver for a promise of a ounce of gold. HELL NO. !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And this is without the pre-war histeria, like, yeah, assume UK and US do actually manage to establish a foothold in Europe and scare the crap out of Hitler. What in the world assures us that Hitler won't be so scared that he would go for a sepparate peace with them and they would allow him to focus on us? I mean that's what they did in 1938 and look where we are now. And last but not least, still related to the Second Front ideea: ITALY 1943 (I cannot emphasize that piece of text enough). US and UK did establish a second front in Europe. AND IT FAILED. US troops got bogged down in the terrain of Italy. Oh, and we have no clue if the Lend-Lease was actually reduced as per TIKs story claims. So, in hindsight, the whole ideea of 'we cut you off supply to launch a second front' is obviously a bullcrap.
    1
  4.  The Colonel  Well, there is something called propaganda and deception. Like the passage TIK quotes regarding 'a socialist resistance' with Christians, Social Democrats etc. etc. Perhaps those things were not even close to the size supposed soviet propaganda made it look like, if they existed at all. However, when you hear that: 'Hey there is a dude in our Germany against the nazis, and he's not necessarily communist. Hey there is another dude in there, and he's making friends with his enemies', there is this psychological mechanism that triggers which tells you 'this might not be a bad ideea' On the other hand, you can have the German side. I mean the Germans were bluffing. They could see that by 1943 their 'Bliztkrieg' was not even a Thunder, more like a noisy wind. Considering they were masters of propaganda (and that Hitler, or some of his subordinates, did actually try to initiate talks between Germany and Britain) those calls for negotiations might have served only to create tensions in the Allied side and make any of the sides back down
    1
  5. What you like to think of yourself and what you are able to do are 2 different things. Soviet Union loathing about Eastern and Central Europe? For what? Dude, our countries were shitholes at that stage. Romania had a bit of an aerospace industry and started mechanisation, but we were still far behind USSR. The rest of the countries were too far behind. What would the soviets do with them? Their only purpose was to act as buffer zones. Had they gained Denmark and Germany, yeah. It would have been too awesome
    1
  6. Kursk was delayed because Germans hoped for a fast victory in their Manouver Warfare style, you know, encircle the whole salient and then hope for a stalemate. But for manouver warfare, you need to actually be able to manouver. Weather was shit that year and the soil and improper roads meant that you could not manouver.
    1
  7.  @clicheguevara9917  Well, they might have been quite optimistic. Lend Lease routes were mostly secured by this point. 1943 was a rough year because the germans received an arms upgrade (tigers, new TDs, new planes etc.), but the Soviets would receive more and new equipment in 1944, including T-34-85, IS-2, new planes etc. Soo, they might have been more interested
    1
  8.  @MrLeoni2  he means when were the dates set. Aka when did those guys deceide to meet, not when they actually met
    1