• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

(Gah, it cut off the title...it's Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик)

I made this thread partially because I wanted to make the title in Cyrillic and because I wanted to see who understood it.:mrgreen: No, actually I want opinions and ideas. What do you think of the former Soviet Union, it's ideas, economy, government...it's HISTORY!

And what do you know if it? I've met lots of people who really have no idea how it operated.
 

realist

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

V.I. Lenin said:
(Gah, it cut off the title...it's Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик)

I made this thread partially because I wanted to make the title in Cyrillic and because I wanted to see who understood it.:mrgreen: No, actually I want opinions and ideas. What do you think of the former Soviet Union, it's ideas, economy, government...it's HISTORY!

And what do you know if it? I've met lots of people who really have no idea how it operated.
I'm curious why the soviet union invaded afghanistan?
 

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

Ahhh I love that question. It was a cruicial part of Soviet history yet most Americans know nothing about it. Alright...well:

Afghanistan was a monarchy, and in deep water because of a crumbling economy and overall unrest amongst the people. The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) saw this as a weakness, killed the monarch and increased its power with help from Moscow (it was the Cold War and thrid world influence was a big deal)

With the new Marxist government in place, Soviet-style reforms began. Land distribution was started but mostly misunderstood by the Afghani people and new laws centering around marriages and religion angered the conservative Islamic population.

Pretty soon a revolt began and the Soviet Union came to assist the Afghan government. However, desert warfare was new to the mostly mountain and urban trained Soviet soldiers, and the USA gave weapons and funds to the Afghani extremists including the Stinger missle, a new surface to air weapon that took out hundreds of Soviet helicopters. The Soviets ended up being attacked by the people they were trying to protect including civilians, and the Soviet Union was known as the great infidel in Extremist Islamic culture.

Well..I rambled on. But yeah basically thats the Soviet-Afghan war in a nutshell. The Soviets retreated and the economic cost of the war was another crack in the crumbling Soviet Union. It was a pretty bad time...
 

hawk2

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2005
Messages
58
Reaction score
0
Location
NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

Are you convinced that Marxism is a failed experiment or......do you think if failed because of the monster Stalin, and that Marxism is still worth experimenting with?
 

realist

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

V.I. Lenin said:
Ahhh I love that question. It was a cruicial part of Soviet history yet most Americans know nothing about it. Alright...well:

Afghanistan was a monarchy, and in deep water because of a crumbling economy and overall unrest amongst the people. The People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) saw this as a weakness, killed the monarch and increased its power with help from Moscow (it was the Cold War and thrid world influence was a big deal)

With the new Marxist government in place, Soviet-style reforms began. Land distribution was started but mostly misunderstood by the Afghani people and new laws centering around marriages and religion angered the conservative Islamic population.

Pretty soon a revolt began and the Soviet Union came to assist the Afghan government. However, desert warfare was new to the mostly mountain and urban trained Soviet soldiers, and the USA gave weapons and funds to the Afghani extremists including the Stinger missle, a new surface to air weapon that took out hundreds of Soviet helicopters. The Soviets ended up being attacked by the people they were trying to protect including civilians, and the Soviet Union was known as the great infidel in Extremist Islamic culture.

Well..I rambled on. But yeah basically thats the Soviet-Afghan war in a nutshell. The Soviets retreated and the economic cost of the war was another crack in the crumbling Soviet Union. It was a pretty bad time...
Thanks for the info, similar to the U.S. in Vietnam. So what is your take on the soviet system today, how would you define the government? I'm assuming it's leaning more democratic?
 

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

Thanks for the info, similar to the U.S. in Vietnam. So what is your take on the soviet system today, how would you define the government? I'm assuming it's leaning more democratic?
Soviet government went kaput in 1991, and my family left days thereafter. Today it is a semi-democratic government ruled by a corporate puppet who rules with an iron fist.

Are you convinced that Marxism is a failed experiment or......do you think if failed because of the monster Stalin, and that Marxism is still worth experimenting with?
Stalin destroyed Lenin's dream of Marxism and killed the only one who could continue it, Leon Trotsky. Now, as for Marxism in general, it's an experiment we should improve upon and revise. Marxism, 100% is like vodka being 100% proof. It's too strong, we can't handle it, at least not now. Marxism needs to be experimented with, improved upon and put into power. Communism cannot be achived in a year, a decade, or maybe ever. Marxist: Add two parts compassion, subtract three parts economic common sense. Marx was a smart man, and a great sociologist, but would make a terrible accountant. Read Karl Kautsky if you want to understand better what I mean.

*prepares for flaming from devout Marxists*
 

realist

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

V.I. Lenin said:
Soviet government went kaput in 1991, and my family left days thereafter. Today it is a semi-democratic government ruled by a corporate puppet who rules with an iron fist.


Stalin destroyed Lenin's dream of Marxism and killed the only one who could continue it, Leon Trotsky. Now, as for Marxism in general, it's an experiment we should improve upon and revise. Marxism, 100% is like vodka being 100% proof. It's too strong, we can't handle it, at least not now. Marxism needs to be experimented with, improved upon and put into power. Communism cannot be achived in a year, a decade, or maybe ever. Marxist: Add two parts compassion, subtract three parts economic common sense. Marx was a smart man, and a great sociologist, but would make a terrible accountant. Read Karl Kautsky if you want to understand better what I mean.

*prepares for flaming from devout Marxists*
I know you adore marxist ideology, and I've been a smart a@@ in the past threads. I'm not doing that now, because I see you are coming from a perspective to want to make this world better, however I think the lessons of marxist ideology failing in different governments is enough to conclude that it's not possible, if it was it would of happened already?
 

realist

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

realist said:
I know you adore marxist ideology, and I've been a smart a@@ in the past threads. I'm not doing that now, because I see you are coming from a perspective to want to make this world better, however I think the lessons of marxist ideology failing in different governments is enough to conclude that it's not possible, if it was it would of happened already?
I forgot to ask why you think Putin rules with an iron fist?
 

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

I know you adore marxist ideology
Well I adore Marxist history and Marx's dream. I adore my Marxist homeland. Marxist idealogy...not so much.

and I've been a smart a@@ in the past threads
Hah, look at some of my posts.

however I think the lessons of marxist ideology failing in different governments is enough to conclude that it's not possible, if it was it would of happened already?
Marxist ideology has been abused and misused around the world. Venezuela and Yugoslavia have been the only nations to take Marx's ideas and use them correctly, in my eyes. Would it have happened already...? You mean the global revolution and all the mumbo jumbo? Yeah, I guess, but thats what I mean. Parts of Marx's ideas need to be nixed.

I advocate revisionist, not revolutionary, Marxism (much to the dismay of some of my former "comrades"). A more Euro-Socialist kind of Marxism. Marxism in the 20th century had about as much to do with Marx's ideas as Christianity in the Middle Ages had to do with Christ's teachings
 

The Truth-Bringer

Active member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
260
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

Being a Expert in Soviet Stalinist History, I arent qualified much to comment on the Post-Stalin Years, For I am more educated in Pre-Stalin/Stalin/Early Khruschev. There is so much to say but I shall state it summarized here.

Stalin was a cruel backstabbing Heartless Dictator, His Politics were so corrupted and controlled. His power was basically in appointing the members of the central Comittee and Politburo, and then ordering them to vote for his Decisions such as The 5-Year Plan and Laws on Counter-Terror. He put His Own Henchmen in and made them order the crimes, and if they didnt he simply replaced them, for he knew he didnt want to have his signature on those death warrants, even though he personally signed still around 60,000.
Personally he was a very calm man, at parties he drank a lot and made fun of his appointees, such as one time he stuck a Pastry on Khruschevs seat and when Khruschev sat on it he laughed. He was very well read, as he annoted so many of the books in his library, which is estimated to be over 20,000 books. He apparently did not care much though for theoretics or logical thinking, such as he rarely wrote a theoretic aritlce , except once in his pre-dicator years and a few loose ones later on, and he showed his illogical thinking when he destroyed his Miltary right before declaring war.

The Stalinist Era can be viewed from two sides: Emotional and Logically, as most things can. The Emotional part is the personal stories and such by beings, as seen in the books such as "The Gulag Archipelago" By Solzhenitsyn and also by him "One day in the life of Ivan Denoizivich", "Enemies of the State; personal stories from the Gulag", and part of "Stalin and His Hangman: The Tyrant and those who killed for him", and Also the book by Former Politburo Member Yakovlev "A Century of Violence in Soviet Russia", whie the other side is the scholarly analysis and counting of the dead and political powers, by people such as Robert Conquest and RJ Rummel in their Numerous Books, and also Jim powell, even though Jim Powell only briefly Touches the Subject. One truly Non-Emotional Analysis is one by Oleg Khlevnuk, in his "History of the Gulag" which is pure analysis, no Emotion Attached at all, a amazing feat when talking about that system.

One part that personally saddens me is the Merciless Execution of the Intelligentsia and the Former Politburo and Elite Members/Theoretical Elite of Lenins Crowd or Pre-Revolution Group, such as Zinoviev, Kamenev, Rykov, Buhkarin, and others just to name a few. The Subject of Soviet History is vastly more complicated than this, but one can only fit so much in so little.
 

realist

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

V.I. Lenin said:
Well I adore Marxist history and Marx's dream. I adore my Marxist homeland. Marxist idealogy...not so much.


Hah, look at some of my posts.


Marxist ideology has been abused and misused around the world. Venezuela and Yugoslavia have been the only nations to take Marx's ideas and use them correctly, in my eyes. Would it have happened already...? You mean the global revolution and all the mumbo jumbo? Yeah, I guess, but thats what I mean. Parts of Marx's ideas need to be nixed.

I advocate revisionist, not revolutionary, Marxism (much to the dismay of some of my former "comrades"). A more Euro-Socialist kind of Marxism. Marxism in the 20th century had about as much to do with Marx's ideas as Christianity in the Middle Ages had to do with Christ's teachings
How would the soviet unions history have been different if Stalin didn't destroy Lenin's dream? In other words, was the soviet union headed in the right direction with Lenin and Trotsky. Would we have to re-write the history books?
 

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

How would the soviet unions history have been different if Stalin didn't destroy Lenin's dream? In other words, was the soviet union headed in the right direction with Lenin and Trotsky. Would we have to re-write the history books?
The text books would definatly have to be re-written. Trotsky may or may not have advocated such a push towards industry, and as a result the USSR probably wouldn't have been a major player in WW2. Then again, Trotsky wasn't so expansionist as Stalin was..so Hitler might not have invaded the USSR...who knows? Thats a great mystery.
 

The Truth-Bringer

Active member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
260
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

We cant know what Happens in things that never did happen ;)
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Reaction score
306
Location
Geelong, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

V.I. Lenin said:
The text books would definatly have to be re-written. Trotsky may or may not have advocated such a push towards industry, and as a result the USSR probably wouldn't have been a major player in WW2. Then again, Trotsky wasn't so expansionist as Stalin was..so Hitler might not have invaded the USSR...who knows? Thats a great mystery.

Hitler would have invaded the USSR regardless of if whether Trotsky or Stalin was in power. If anything Stalin's industrialisation of the USSR, allowed the Soviet Union to build it millitary muscle that would eventually crush the German Wermacht.

Let's say that Trotsky would have never of pushed the industrialisation of the Soviet Union. That would mean that the great counter offensives by the Red Army in late 1942 onwards would have been less likely. Therefore it is highly likely that the European section of the CCCP would have fallen into the German Reich.

And in all likelyness, Germany may have won the war. Very scary indeed.

Remember Hitler had always planed to invade the Soviet Union, as part of his plan of 'living space'. So really Hitler's fear of eventual Stalin inspired Soviet expansion, forced the Fueher's hand. To invade when he had not yet defeated the British.
 

The Truth-Bringer

Active member
Joined
Jul 16, 2005
Messages
260
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

Australianlibertarian said:
Hitler would have invaded the USSR regardless of if whether Trotsky or Stalin was in power. If anything Stalin's industrialisation of the USSR, allowed the Soviet Union to build it millitary muscle that would eventually crush the German Wermacht.

Let's say that Trotsky would have never of pushed the industrialisation of the Soviet Union. That would mean that the great counter offensives by the Red Army in late 1942 onwards would have been less likely. Therefore it is highly likely that the European section of the CCCP would have fallen into the German Reich.

And in all likelyness, Germany may have won the war. Very scary indeed.

Remember Hitler had always planed to invade the Soviet Union, as part of his plan of 'living space'. So really Hitler's fear of eventual Stalin inspired Soviet expansion, forced the Fueher's hand. To invade when he had not yet defeated the British.
Actually if Stalin didnt take power and Trotsky did, then Trotsky wouldnt have Collectivized with such evil harshness, and as the core of the Nazi's Gain into power was Crying about Stalin's Terrible Crimes, once the Famine was taken away, and since noone knew much about the city terror, so thus They would be deprived of their base for the "Evils of Communism", and Hitler would have 1.) Never gotten enough votes, or 2.) Won but the REichstag fire wouldnt allowed him dictorial powers, or 3.) He would attack but he wouldnt have enough support from EITHER Russia or Germany, so he would lose.
 
S

scotia

Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

Dasvadanya tavarich Lenin ( excuse my crude Russian), I agree with your most of your post, especially the comment on the Euro Socialist path which should now be applied.
 
A

Androvski

Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

hawk2 said:
Are you convinced that Marxism is a failed experiment or......do you think if failed because of the monster Stalin, and that Marxism is still worth experimenting with?
I think that the spectre of Stalin taints many peoples view on Marxism,as soon as you mention that you are a Marxist they automatically visualise Stalinism.
It most definately is worthy of perseverence,there is no fairer system for us all in my opinion.
The chances of initiating such a system in today's selfish"me,me,I,I"money grabbing screw everyone else world is another matter.
 

V.I. Lenin

Active member
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
381
Reaction score
0
Location
NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

Actually if Stalin didnt take power and Trotsky did, then Trotsky wouldnt have Collectivized with such evil harshness, and as the core of the Nazi's Gain into power was Crying about Stalin's Terrible Crimes, once the Famine was taken away, and since noone knew much about the city terror, so thus They would be deprived of their base for the "Evils of Communism", and Hitler would have 1.) Never gotten enough votes, or 2.) Won but the REichstag fire wouldnt allowed him dictorial powers, or 3.) He would attack but he wouldnt have enough support from EITHER Russia or Germany, so he would lose.
Duuuude....you just blew my mind......
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

V.I. Lenin said:
(Gah, it cut off the title...it's Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик)

I made this thread partially because I wanted to make the title in Cyrillic and because I wanted to see who understood it.:mrgreen: No, actually I want opinions and ideas. What do you think of the former Soviet Union, it's ideas, economy, government...it's HISTORY!

And what do you know if it? I've met lots of people who really have no idea how it operated.
I didn't think too highly of it although I thought Khruschev did humanity a service when he revealed Stalin's evil. We were within a gnat's eyelash of blowing up the world in 1962 when Khruschev underestimated Kennedy. I spent three days in a command bunker in Europe during that time. That, if it had come off, would have destroyed world civilization for centuries. We would have been bombed back into the stone age and we wouldn't be debating this on the internet. We'd more likely than not be communicating by smoke signal. I was not fond of KAL 007 either. That was a wanton act of mass murder by a regime that was parnaoid.

Bottom line, I don't believe collectivism is a system that can work over a long period of time. It can work for a short period of time and may in fact be necessary to clear out the old order but the trouble is that the new bunch assume the same or worse practices of ruling over the peons. In the Soviet Union it went horribly wrong and the Russian people are still feeling the effects.
 

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

V.I. Lenin said:
The text books would definatly have to be re-written. Trotsky may or may not have advocated such a push towards industry, and as a result the USSR probably wouldn't have been a major player in WW2. Then again, Trotsky wasn't so expansionist as Stalin was..so Hitler might not have invaded the USSR...who knows? Thats a great mystery.
We could and would have done business with Trotsky had he been in power other than Stalin. Stalin's paranoia virtually wiped out the military officer corps and nearly lost WWII to Hitler. That would have never happened with Trotsky.
 
A

Androvski

Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

V.I. Lenin said:
The text books would definatly have to be re-written. Trotsky may or may not have advocated such a push towards industry, and as a result the USSR probably wouldn't have been a major player in WW2. Then again, Trotsky wasn't so expansionist as Stalin was..so Hitler might not have invaded the USSR...who knows? Thats a great mystery.
Come on he'd have invaded the USSR anyway,that was without doubt Hitler's primary objective(German expansion).I'm no supporter of Stalin I can assure you,but had the USSR been less industrialised,would it have been capable of producing the vast quantity of munitions required for withtanding the Nazi onslaught,would having experienced officers in charge really have made that much difference then?
 
Last edited:

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

Androvski said:
Come on he'd have invaded the USSR anyway,that was without doubt Hitler's primary objective(German expansion).I'm no supporter of Stalin I can assure you,but had the USSR been less industrialised,would it have been capable of producing the vast quantity of munitions required for withtanding the Nazi onslaught,would having experienced officers in charge really have made that much difference then?
Not necessarily. Stalin killed off his best officers prior to the war because he couldn't stand the idea anyone could offer any threat to his dictatorship. He also killed off most of the leadership of the revolution on trumped up charges. Even after war that left something like 27 million dead in the Soviet Union, he buried Marshall Zhukov in obscurity who had saved his sorry butt.

After Stalin croaked (with possible), the first thing that happened was the arrest and execution of the KGB head Beria. Khruschev knew enough that Beria was extremely dangerous and had the goods on everyone else and was a real threat to succeed Stalin. Khruschev's big sin was that he actually believed the communist nonsense telling us that he would "bury us." In the end it took him too living out his life as a "non-person." His son Sergei now lives in the U.S. and attained U.S. citizenship some years ago. Even Stalin's own daughter came here and married and had a daughter who I believe is still here. Svetlana went back to the Soviet Union as I recall.

I always believe that people vote most effectively with their feet. Talk is cheap but actions speak the truth.

Actually, Hitler's ultimate goal was the defeat of the United States. This was covered extensively in his less well known follow-up to Mein Kampf. The Soviet Union would have been defeated if not for Hitler's taking charge of the war effort. Had the oil lines been cut, the Soviet Union would have no choice but to have sued for peace. Then Hitler would have finished off England and then worked on his long range goal of defeating the United States to achieve worldwide rule.
 
Last edited:
A

Androvski

Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

Missouri Mule said:
Not necessarily. Stalin killed off his best officers prior to the war because he couldn't stand the idea anyone could offer any threat to his dictatorship. He also killed off most of the leadership of the revolution on trumped up charges. Even after war that left something like 27 million dead in the Soviet Union, he buried Marshall Zhukov in obscurity who had saved his sorry butt.

After Stalin croaked (with possible), the first thing that happened was the arrest and execution of the KGB head Beria. Khruschev knew enough that Beria was extremely dangerous and had the goods on everyone else and was a real threat to succeed Stalin. Khruschev's big sin was that he actually believed the communist nonsense telling us that he would "bury us." In the end it took him too living out his life as a "non-person." His son Sergei now lives in the U.S. and attained U.S. citizenship some years ago. Even Stalin's own daughter came here and married and had a daughter who I believe is still here. Svetlana went back to the Soviet Union as I recall.

I always believe that people vote most effectively with their feet. Talk is cheap but actions speak the truth.

Actually, Hitler's ultimate goal was the defeat of the United States. This was covered extensively in his less well known follow-up to Mein Kampf. The Soviet Union would have been defeated if not for Hitler's taking charge of the war effort. Had the oil lines been cut, the Soviet Union would have no choice but to have sued for peace. Then Hitler would have finished off England and then worked on his long range goal of defeating the United States to achieve worldwide rule.
The US may have been Hitler's ultimate goal,but he did want to expand Germany's boundaries and aquire greater space for"Germanic"peoples.
Where was the greatest amount of land?in the USSR of course!
Defeat of the USA would have waited(and was un unattainable goal at the time anyway),to him the most exigent matter at the time was the conquest of the Soviet Union.
He must have secretly despised Japan for bringing the USA into the war when it did,if the USA was indeed his ultimate objective!
 
Last edited:

Missouri Mule

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
1,406
Reaction score
48
Location
Hot Springs, Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Рес&

Androvski said:
The US may have been Hitler's ultimate goal,but he did want to expand Germany's boundaries and aquire greater space for"Germanic"peoples.

Where was the greatest amount of land,in the USSR!
Defeat of the USA would have waited(and was un unattainable goal at the time anyway),to him the most exigent matter at the time was the conquest of the Soviet Union.

He must have secretly despised Japan for bringing the USA into the war when it did,if the USA was indeed his ultimate objective!
I'm not sure that I agree with you. On your last point, Japan was a member of the Axis and therefore it would follow that Hitler would not have been reticent about expressing such misgivings if in fact they were misgivings. In point of fact, the purpose of Pearl Harbor was to remove the U.S. from the war in the Pacific altogether. That would have permitted Japan to have their way unfettered. Australia would have been easily defeated without American intervention. It's the old strategy of cutting down the playing field. We were most vulnerable at that time and had our carriers been at Pearl and destroyed we may very well have had no choice but to capitulate to the Japanese Empire. The peaceniks always have their way during lulls betweeen wars and this was no different. Some 85% of the American people were against our entering WWII after the travesty of WWI.

Actually the U.S. was not an unattainable goal of Hitler. Germany was heavily involved in their own nuclear program and had they succeeded in beating us to the draw, one can only speculate on the result. Hitler owned the seas with his U-Boats. Had Britain fallen we would have been isolated.

People don't realize or appreciate the fact that WWII was in fact a fight for our very survival. Had Hitler let his generals run the war, he would have won WWII and we would today all be speaking German. That's a fact and you can go to the bank on it.
 
Top Bottom