How Responsible was the Soviet Union for the *rise* of Nazi Germany?

May 2018
1,069
Michigan
TBH, I don't want to comment about a topic about which I lack sufficient knowledge. Else, I'd simply look stupid, don't you think? :)
One of the reasons I respect your opinion is because you don't give them unless you feel sufficiently informed to speak.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
24,516
SoCal
One of the reasons I respect your opinion is because you don't give them unless you feel sufficiently informed to speak.
Thank you; I'm very flattered for this! :) Anyway, please check out the two links that I sent you via PM. If you want, I can post these two links here for everyone to see. :)
 
May 2018
1,069
Michigan
The USSR was responsible for the rise of Nazi Germany in a way due to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which allowed Hitler to start WWII with the Stalin's help.
I am inclined to agree (with caveats, as you said yourself "in a way"): I don't think Hitler was going to risk invading Poland without some assurance that the Soviet Union wouldn't interfere. But if Stalin had proved to be as intransigent as Churchill would later prove to be, would he have gone ahead anyway?

If he had, it would have been to his own doom. Now Britain and France are at war with Germany, and the Soviet Union is massing troops on the Polish border (at the very least, if not contesting the invasion out of a legitimate fear of German aggression against the Soviets). At this point, the Western Allies might not even need the United States to defeat Germany, and the Russian Nationalists could legitimately claim all the credit for stopping Fascism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kubis Gabcik

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
24,516
SoCal
I am inclined to agree (with caveats, as you said yourself "in a way"): I don't think Hitler was going to risk invading Poland without some assurance that the Soviet Union wouldn't interfere. But if Stalin had proved to be as intransigent as Churchill would later prove to be, would he have gone ahead anyway?
Probably not, IMHO.

If he had, it would have been to his own doom. Now Britain and France are at war with Germany, and the Soviet Union is massing troops on the Polish border (at the very least, if not contesting the invasion out of a legitimate fear of German aggression against the Soviets). At this point, the Western Allies might not even need the United States to defeat Germany, and the Russian Nationalists could legitimately claim all the credit for stopping Fascism.
Without Soviet supplies, Nazi Germany is likely going to be really hurt--as per the Wikipedia article that I previously posted here. Completely agreed that the Allies can win WWII without US help in this scenario. The question, of course, would be whether the Baltic countries, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany actually manage to avoid going Red after the end of WWII in this scenario.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kubis Gabcik

pugsville

Ad Honoris
Oct 2010
10,098

"Comment from Rich Rostrom
Time:
April 26, 2013, 3:59 am


Oh, man… Hitler “right” or “left”?

Definitely not “conservative”. Fascism was all about charging into the future and radically changing society. It was a split-off from Red socialism, when it became apparent that capitalism was making the proletarian masses prosperious, not driving them to rise up in Revolution. So some other political package had to be sold for the revolutionaries to win power. Extreme nationalism and a cult of unity was that package. “Everything in the state…”

However, fascists regularly allied with reactionary conservatives, such as Franco in Spain, some Italian and German aristocrats, and some extremist Catholics. (There were monks running Ustashe prison camps in Yugoslavia.)

And fascists (including Nazis) didn’t confiscate private wealth or expropriate industry (except from Jews). The “Sozialist” in NSDAP was a flag of convenience. The “Red” element of the Nazis was mainly the Strasser brothers and the SA, who were all purged by Hitler as he took power. (The SA were described as “beefsteaks”: brown on the outside, red on the inside.)

The militarist element of fascism, and the racial element of Nazism, was definitely “right”, not “left”.

Yes, if one really wants to, one can find parallels between some fascist policies and contemporary liberalism, or with socialism, but that doesn’t mean they are all the same.

Emotionally and symbolically, and on the key issue of economic redistribution, fascism (including Nazism) was “right” not “left”.

There’s a lot in common between the Obama program and the “Progressive” movement of the early 20th century. But Teddy Roosevelt was a fervent Progressive, and he was no socialist."
Militarism is a right wing concept. (when you waaant the few to rule the many you need force)
Nationalist racism is ring wing conceprt. (when you want the few to rule the many you need ideologically justifying it)

Not always but all people of the right nor soley only by those on the right. Germany early 20th century blood and soil. The vast majority of Right wingers in Germany supported Miliatraism and Racisl Nationalism.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
24,516
SoCal
Militarism is a right wing concept. (when you waaant the few to rule the many you need force)
Nationalist racism is ring wing conceprt. (when you want the few to rule the many you need ideologically justifying it)

Not always but all people of the right nor soley only by those on the right. Germany early 20th century blood and soil. The vast majority of Right wingers in Germany supported Miliatraism and Racisl Nationalism.
So, basically, you're agreeing with that post?
 
May 2018
1,069
Michigan
Militarism is a right wing concept. (when you waaant the few to rule the many you need force)
Nationalist racism is ring wing conceprt. (when you want the few to rule the many you need ideologically justifying it)

Not always but all people of the right nor soley only by those on the right. Germany early 20th century blood and soil. The vast majority of Right wingers in Germany supported Miliatraism and Racisl Nationalism.
Militarism is not a right wing concept. Does the US parade its Nuclear Missiles, on the Fourth of July? No, but the Soviets did, every year in Red Square. Miltiarism is authoritarian, which knows neither left nor right. Tyrannies can be right or left wing, as history proves.

Neither is nationalist racism. Stalin had many racist tendencies (he took defeat by the Poles in the war very personally). Hate is hate, and knows neither left nor right.
 

pugsville

Ad Honoris
Oct 2010
10,098
So, basically, you're agreeing with that post?
I';m objecting to this statment

"The militarist element of fascism, and the racial element of Nazism, was definitely “right”, not “left”."

Miltarism and Racial elements are common, if not dominating the political right, and in Germany in the 1900-1930 almost univerasl.

Idea that Milrarism and Racial Ideas somehow made Nazism "foriegn" or "different" from otehr Right Wingers in German is something these seems well wrong.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
24,516
SoCal
I';m objecting to this statment

"The militarist element of fascism, and the racial element of Nazism, was definitely “right”, not “left”."

Miltarism and Racial elements are common, if not dominating the political right, and in Germany in the 1900-1930 almost univerasl.

Idea that Milrarism and Racial Ideas somehow made Nazism "foriegn" or "different" from otehr Right Wingers in German is something these seems well wrong.
Did any--let alone many--non-Nazi German right-wingers actually aim to go beyond a restoration of Germany's 1914 borders, though?

Militarism is not a right wing concept. Does the US parade its Nuclear Missiles, on the Fourth of July? No, but the Soviets did, every year in Red Square. Miltiarism is authoritarian, which knows neither left nor right. Tyrannies can be right or left wing, as history proves.

Neither is nationalist racism. Stalin had many racist tendencies (he took defeat by the Poles in the war very personally). Hate is hate, and knows neither left nor right.
Have you ever heard of the horseshoe theory? :


 
  • Like
Reactions: frogsofwar

pugsville

Ad Honoris
Oct 2010
10,098
Militarism is not a right wing concept. Does the US parade its Nuclear Missiles, on the Fourth of July? No, but the Soviets did, every year in Red Square. Miltiarism is authoritarian, which knows neither left nor right. Tyrannies can be right or left wing, as history proves.

Neither is nationalist racism. Stalin had many racist tendencies (he took defeat by the Poles in the war very personally). Hate is hate, and knows neither left nor right.
Right WIng uis the politics of privilege. You cant have totalraism without privilege. It;s a right iwng concpet. Authoritarism is right wing by defeinistion. Left wing is equality and democracy.

Stalinism is a pervsetion of left iwng principles.

Left wing is peopel in favour of equality, Right wing people in favour of some privilege..