Peace in 1941: Germany "lol why?" Peace in 1943: Germany free to defend its European hegemony but NS state takes big political hit in failing to destroy communism Peace in 1944: Soviets "lol why?"
The idea itself is rather humorous but there is a catch: the war in the East was the war on destruction (Vernichtungskrieg) from the outset . It wasn't like wars of the Middle Ages, even not like WW1. The huge pile of war crimes changed everything. Stalin maybe was pondering some kind of Brest-Litovsk Peace 2.0 in 1941 when the country was at hair's length from defeat (by the way, it's highly remarkable that Isaev's work on Moscow's battle is called literally "Wonder by Moscow" - wonder). But as far as the threat of an immediate defeat was gone and it became known German war crimes after Russian counteriffensive in the Battle of Moscow any notion of separate peace with Germany became absolutely impossible. Only surrender. But on which conditions it wasn't clear for some time. It's widely known that the idea of unconditional surrender was said by Roosevelt at Casablanca conference. Stalin initially was wary of the idea fearing it would prolong German resistance. Only after Stalingrad battle (when it became clear that Germany won't win the war in Russia) Stalin supported the idea. But separate peace after horrendous destruction and millions of deaths in a myriad of war crimes? No.chance whatsoever.
True, but. . .if Germany had accepted Stalin's land-for-peace offer in 1941, it would have won WW2 by first-round knockout. Hitler was just so delusional, and irrational, he had the war won at multiple points from 1939-December of 1941, but he just kept on gambling until he lost everything.
"We Communists always beat you dirty fascists." Marxists like you are one step away from Fascists and Nazis. Communists are international-class-socialists. Fascists are national-socialists. And Nazis are National (race) Socialists.
Yeah, it was a silly misunderstanding. The Minsk & Smolensk pockets, the Kiev and Gomel Pockets, the Bryansk & Vyasma Pockets, 3.5 million POWs deliberately, err accidentally starved to death or died due to exposure to the elements whilst kept in a barbed wire enclosure fence... Oh you didn't think we were at war with you did you? No I thought we were totally copacetic you and I...you mean you think we're at war? Oh you are a riot! I was wondering why I haven't seen any shipments of crude oil in a while!
I could see it now... Stalin: "Let's just go back to the way things used to be." Hitler: "But I already started the eugenicis program, racial cleansing and promised the SS men Russian farm houses..." Stalin: "You what?" Hitler: "What?"
one of the few exceptions in otherwise outstanding analysis of history, the statement ‘the russians and germans were allies’. the non-aggression pact was not an alliance, more akin to an uneasy truce between two foes that knew they would be at war with each other sooner rather than later (or at least Hitler was certain of this, and Stalin was more or less aware). it may have been an ‘alliance’ in the traditional sense of the word, but in the historical and militaristic sense, germany and russia were never allied during ww2.
Germany and the USSR were allied enough that Stalin could call on Maurice Thorez and the French Communists to go on strike in the aviation and munitions factories when Germany attacked France in Summer 1940.
On his return from Teheran he (Stalin) told Zhukov, "Roosevelt has given his word that extensive action will be mounted in France in 1944. I believe that he will keep his word. But even if he does not, our forces are sufficient to complete the rout of Nazi Germany." - Richard Overy “Russia’s War” p. 222 ; Zhukov “Reminiscences”, ii, p. 226
The Colonel Thats exactly right. Too bad some uneducated people think that the only reason the second front was opened is because the Soviets werent able to withstand the pressure from the Germans which is complete nonsense. I guess their minds are still stuck in 1941-1942.
@@kingnevermore25 the euros are the ones stuck in make believe because they cant accept they they all are total pussys. All the euro's folded up like cardboard, if the germans we're such bad asses they would have easily knocked out and invaded the UK in 1940. They couldnt, why they thought they could beat the Soviets or the Americans is because they were irrational. People that live in tiny countries get that way.
@Plamen Stoev Well the Soviets did take a lot of heavy industry from Eastern Germany to rebuild their own country but after not very long started reinvesting everythere when the pattern of cold war had become clear. Whatever else you want to say about the Soviet liberation of Europe it simply wasn't even as bad as the USA and others were still allowing their pet dictators to do to Socialist/leftist and others in their own countries. The atrocities of the south Korean regime the USA imposed on the Korean peninsula were massive to say nothing of the greek Civil war right there in Europe.
@Plamen Stoev The USSR was not trying to dominate the planet. Stalin knew that there was plenty of work left to do in the USSR and that the time for the USSR to be aggressive towards major neighbors was not in the 1940's or even soon after. What the USSR was willing to do was support leftist and generally progressive ( but not too progressive) movements all over the world especially anti colonialist and nationalist movements which might prevent the USA/Western Europe from exploiting their resources and using them to further strengthen nato military capacity. The Idea that the USSR was at any time beyond the 1920's ( and during the civil war) and obvious imperialist aggressor is just a lie.
I found your channel not too long ago. I am completely blown away with your knowledge, critical thinking, ability to cover a subject and be open to new information. I actually thought at one time I knew quite a bit about WW2. Little did I know. Thank you for the time and effort you put into each video. Your answers to questions are exhaustive and never leave room for, “but, how about”. All that said to say, thank you and I am going home to become a supporter. It’s long overdue.
In the book War of the Century, Laurence Rees based on a BBC documentary it talks about peace feelers to the Bulgarian ambassador late July 1941. Also Zhukov gives October 1941 as the date of a conversation between Stalin and Beria about finding out what Germany would want for a seperate peace
The British Ambassador to Moscow during WWII said later "they were aware that Stalin was making overtures to Berlin" for a peace deal "overtures" was the word chosen
The code brakers at Bletchley park made a HUGE difference, hitler couldn't understand how the Russians were there waiting for them, in almost every major offensive, but shrugged it off as them having good surveillance. intelligence
There was an article I read where the Soviets indicated to the Germans through Bulgaria in the early days of Barbarossa in 1941 that they were open to a Brest-Litovsk type treaty. It was published by Nikita Petrov in Novaya Gazeta. It seems plausible that the Soviets continued to make overtures until the war had turned firmly in their favor.
Working my way through the videos.. Still impressed. One comment "Stalin didn't trust the allies".. From what I've read about Stalin it seems this could also be expande to "Stalin trusted nobody". I suspect he may have trusted his dog if he had one though even so he may have had it purged when it got too close to him, exiled it to Siberian guard dog duty or starved it during the 30s
@@sjsupa not really but to be fair they were the most trustworthy of the three(NS-Germany Sov Union and the west)although being the best of a bad bunch still isnt great
I think you should also address the fear by the Soviets that Hitler was seeking a separate 'peace' with the West in Switzerland. But overall, good food for thought.
Hi TIK, There is an article in The Journal of Contemporary History, The Spectre of a Seperate Peace in the East. Soviet-German 'peace feelers' 1942-44. By HW Koch. (Vol 10, number 3. July, 1975) He is looking at a book authored by one of the actual negotiators in Stockholm, titled Zwischen Hitler und Stalin by one Peter Kleist, published in 1950. I also know about a Soviet approach to Germany via Bulgaria. There's definitely something to it. Cheers!
your documentation on the meeting between German and Soviet officials in May of 1943 is the one i read most about, it would make sense at that time as the Soviets having been successful with most of their Stalingrad offensives would feel in a better position to get better terms, but also the soviet defeats at Kharkov and central front, and German recovery made the Soviets weary of a continuing struggle. So lets get something while the getting is good.!
The Germans needed food from the Ukraine and oil from the Southern parts of the Soviet Union. The Russian needed the same thing. The negotiations between the Russians and the Germans were not going to work since both parties wanted the same thing. The Western Allies should have figured this out.
If Stalin had lost his nerve while the Germans were at the gates of Moscow and feared losing everything and/or thought "peacing out" of the war was the only way to save the rest of the USSR, he might have. This is what the West feared would happen, because then Hitler could devote more resources to starving out England and the Mediterranean theater.
As the non-aggression pact(Molotov-Ribbentrop) was still working Soviet supplied Germans with everything they wanted (oil, iron and wheat even weapons) never-ending and agreements were under way to fight against Great Britain together. It was Hitler the idiot who was disloyal to Stalin who was not prepared to a break of word from a German as he often had said. Stalin after the Hitler's treason said that he couldn't have imagined Hitler a German being capable of such a deceitful action. He was really disappointed.
@@silverfletcher2560 No they didn't Germany tryed several time's for Russia to increase what they were trading by 400% especially oil wich was about 900,000 tons or 6.6million barrels of oil Germany domestic production was about 3million barrels or 450,000 tons of crude and 10million barrels of synthetic or over 1,300,000 tons.
@Mike Schnobrich Russia didn't want to give German more oil which was about the only thing Germany wanted and the only thing Russia wouldn't trade more of for obvious reasons lol.
Brian Long Htler deceived his own generals saying them that he had to attack Russia because Stalin was on the point to attack Germany by surprise. That was not true whatever. When the Germans attacked Russia they found Russia completely unprepared to fight and they said that to Hitler that it was not true that Stalin was ready to attack Germany. He trusted the Germans after the nonaggression pact undersigned between Molotov and Von Ribbentrop. Stalin was really disappointed at this criminal and stupid act of treason.
I had a friend growing up that had a grandfather that fought in Italy and got so angry (rightly I think) when ppl would credit D-day (6/6/44) as the opening of a second front. He would ask if all his friends that died in ltaly didn't die on a second European front then where did they die.
I have to say being a historian or at the least a amateur historian TIK is the best informational lectures I have ever heard considering WWll, both in hard facts and open ended views which makes one consider what facts are given, mostly by writers on the subject ( mainly ex generals) and leave it to you to consider both sides of a argument and come up with you’re own assessment. Many thanks for your videos they are truly remarkable 👍👍👍😁😁
The documentary ‘Russia’s War, Blood Upon the Snow’ documents with sources that Stalin offered a peace agreement to Hitler through a Bulgarian Ambassador acting as an Soviet agent. He wanted to buy time for the USSR and was panicked by the speed of the German advance in 1941, but allegedly the request was laughed at.
That’s interesting. It’s easier to make the case, in that light, that North Africa was absolutely crucial. Not just as a springboard to get Allied troops into Europe by invading Sicily and Italy, but also to keep the USSR from making a separate peace, being unable to see any light at the end of the tunnel. And, in so doing, possibly opening up oil supplies for Germany. It reinforces how inter-connected all these theaters of conflict really were.
Absolutely. The Allied conquest of southern Italy gave the Allies airbases within range of the Axis oil fields in Romania. The Allies immediately began bombing the Axis oil production in Romania.
Do you remember it was me who mentioned that about half year ago in one of your videos ? :) And yes, we don t know the participants exactly ( but both Molotov and Rippentrop was there for sure) and we don t know the exact details, but it s probable that the Soviet offered the pre-war borders meanwhile Germans wanted a satalite state Ukraine and concessions and so on, so the Soviet declined the offer and in June the negotiations broke and never continued of course after Kursk.And yes, the reason why the Germans wanted negotiations is Stalingrad, meanwhile the reason for the Soviets was the Third Battle of Kharkov. Stalin even told his generals many times ( i don t want one more Kharkov) and he was not sure about the victory until Kursk ended.
Interesting video. It makes sense from a strategic perspective. The Soviets were for a long time too close the brink of collapse for comfort and were largely kept functioning by lend-lease from the Allies and the non-aggression by the Japanese. So if there was any way to effectively get a do-over where Germany retreated without the loss of further of men and material, that would have been a major diplomatic victory. A white peace would have given Stalin ample time to shore up Russian industry and digest the experiences from the war to reforge the Red Army. They would have gone out of the conflict strengthened in the long run. The Nazis had likely also realized that their strategy had failed and every day of fighting cost the Reich dearly in future potential. If they could secure the Ukrainian soil for Germany and guarantee access to Caucasus oil then their whole goal for fighting the war would have been achieved. Germanization of Poland, the Baltics and Ukraine would have taken several generations anyways, so if autarky had been established there was little reason to lose those same men meant to wrest control of the conquered territories rather in a protracted war against the Russians. However, for both sides, control of Ukraine and the Caucasus was of strategic importance and no side could compromise on that. That's why any peace talks were doomed from the start.
@@ОлафИванов Stalin and Khruschev themselves said Lend-Lease was vital. The Soviet Union were on the brink of economic collapse and a famine if it werent for Lend Lease
Interestingly, in Alan Clark's book, Barbarossa, he recounts the story of Stalin's despair as the Germans were nearing Moscow, in late 1941. The story goes that Stalin sent Beria to the Albanian ambassador to ask him to mediate between the Soviets and the Germans. The Albanian ambassador was non-plussed by this, assuring Beria that he thought the Germans would lose and rebuffed these efforts. By 1943, there really can't have been any chance that the Soviets would have accepted a negotiated peace.
Liddle Hart in his history of WW2 mentions one of these negotiations. It was to take place in mid 1943 around (before?) the time of the battle of Kursk but failed for at least two reasons: a) Germany wanted to keep much of the Soviet territory captured in 1941 and b) western allies learned about the peace talks.
Soviet writer Valentin Pikul had mentioned Stalin's attempts at peace talks with Hitler in his 1990s unfinished novel "Barbarossa. Square of the Fallen Fighters".
Good parts and pieces. Told to make the German infantrymen less like brutes. Probably the most anachronistic feature is the perfect teeth of the German soldiers up to the end.
@@dbmail545 I don't think the avg German infantryman was any more a brute than a Russian or allied infantryman(there's always exceptions but in general) most people are decent and don't enjoy the suffering of others but in war its a soldiers duty sometimes to hurt people unfortunately(that's certainly how it was viewed at the time idk if its correct though). Also some of the stuff it depicted was quite brutal indeed. totally agree about the teeth but they're actors what can you do no ones gonna rot out their mouth for a movie lol.
Stalin knew Hitler and the Nazis could not be trusted, that had already signed a pact then invaded, they had made it clear that they wanted a large portion of the USSR. The chances of Stalin surviving a settlement that would satisfy the Nazis would be doubtful. I would expect Stalin to have negotiations purely for the effect it would have on the Western allies, to increase lend lease and hurry a second front. Any resulting lull in fighting only makes USSR stronger in relation to the Nazis. I also would expect all records of this to be destroyed so like many things in history will remain obscure the scant evidence open to differing interpretations and conspiracy theories.
Stalin wanted to make eastern european countries as a buffer and their stratagy to take Berlin is purely to force the eastern block countries to fall under a communist government friendly to the USSR. And the allies fell for it.
Maybe the reason they didn't include workers in the group who attended the supposed meeting for peace is because it's implied that everyone other than the entrepreneurs are workers.
One thing was missed here: Stalin always suspicious that he would be double crossed first, may have feared that Germany would strike a deal with the West first. Without the gift of hindsight, even in early 1943, Stalin had no reason to believe he would win, and/or Germany would not seek out a separate peace with the US and Great Britain after a huge setback like Stalingrad.
The nazis fear the "soviet ofensive" (the cause of fight Kursk and not pass to defensive positions like many generals advised), STAVKA support Zhukov strategy (The panzerkiel, Blitzkrieg fails against Moscow, Stalingrad before, I mean an atrittion defensive barrier and next two ofensives : Rudyamtsev and the other one, the objetive is isolate by pincer movements the two nazi groups)
This is an old video and I don't know if you or anyone is paying attention to these comments but Liddel Hart states in his book, the history of World War 2 in the chapter about the Kursk operation, that before that battle opened, some time earlier in 1943 Soviet and Nazi delegations met in a place called Kirvogard, which was in German occupied Russia, I believe. Part of the reason for the meeting was to arrange an exchange of prisoners. The second was for an exchange of peace proposals. The Germans offered the Dneiper as the boundary for a cease fire line. Russia wanted the status antebellum. The talks broke down over this divergence. Ribbentrop and Molotov participated in these talks according to Hart. I'm almost certain there was an exchange of prisoners at this time, perhaps a few hundred thousand on each side. Back in the 80's I met a German who was a tank man on Eastern front who was captured and stated that he was freed in an exchange in 43. It was a few years later that I read about this in Harts book. Its anecdotal but I'm fairly certain that this did occur but I can't find out much more about it. I think the actual pages in the book that mention it is pg. 509 or 510.
First of all. I really admire your work on your videos. But as a 'reader' of the German part of the WW2, and Hitlers Nazism for the last ~ 25 years, there is a few things, that strikes me as a little 'odd', when it comes down to the idea of peace negotiations between Germany and the Soviet. First of all, is Hitler himself. For all I have been able to read me to of knowledge, Hitlers conquest in Eastern Europe wasn't as much an ideological war (he left most of that to Himmler and to his propaganda ministry). To Hitler, it was most of all a war for a German Empire. This goes back to Hitlers experience during WW1. During a leave from the army in 1917, Hitler witnessed strikes and demonstrations in Germany, because of the food shortage caused by the allied blockade, which in 1918 (in his mind), lead to the famous "backstab of the German army" by the politicians. This again, lead to his belief in, that Germany would need to be 'self supplying', if it was to secure it self in the future. He wrote of the idea of colonies, for an expansion to the east, to reach this goal (Mein Kampf). Or as he is quoted to say in 'Hitlers tablet talks 1941/42': "If we get the wheat from Ukraine and the oil from Russia, Germany will be self sustained, and be able to fight a war against continents in the future". No peace negotiations with the Soviet, would ever give him that. Or as he told Goebbels, when Goebbels asked him about peace negotiations with the Soviet in 1943: "Stalin will not agree to my demands for a peace" (Goebbels diaries). Or as Hitler told his adjutant, when he asked Hitler about a peace with the Soviet: "You know. If I make peace with the Soviet today, I would have to attack the Soviet again tomorrow" (Allan Bullock). So all though there is a lot of evidence of higher ranking Nazis urging Hitler to seek a peace with the Soviet, there is nothing that suggest, that Hitler would ever even think that thought. Allan Bullock mentions, that in the winter 1942/43, Stalin actually had a peace negotiator sitting in Sweden, but nothing came of it, because no German ever showed up. Taking Hitlers ideas of goals for attacking the Soviet in to account, this sounds more reliable to me Stalin on the other hand, had good reasons for keeping up the idea of peace negotiations, as a way to put pressure on Britain and the US, to open up a 'second front'. But the only realistic idea about peace negotiations I have been able to find, is from the winter 1941, where Molotov and Stalin should have asked the Bulgarian ambassador, if he would act as a middleman. To this, the ambassador apparently answered: "No, because the Soviet will win the war in the end" (Allan Bullock). I think the 'proclamation' you refer to in your video, has to be seen in this light. When Stalin proclaimed to the Russian people, that there was an active 'peace movement' in Germany, it would not only be heard by the Russians, but also by England and the US. Another thing is, that the letter mentions Social Democrats, but there was no members of a Social Democrats in Germany, at that time. Far the most members of the Social Democrats, had either joined the Nazi party at that time, or had fled to Austria and Czechoslovakia after Hitler came to power in 1933 (where they where rounded up, when Germany invaded the countries in 1938/39). Another thing is, that the 'proves' of peace negotiations all come from the Soviet. Again, it was in Stalins interest, to keep letting the Allies know about ongoing peace negotiations, as a mean to pressure on for a 'second front'. Letting false information about 'ongoing peace negotiations' slip through to the Swedish, wouldn't have been the biggest problem for the Soviet intelligence, as the Swedish had no way to confirm weather those information was true or not. All the Swedish could do, was to pass on what ever information they got, to the Allies. So in short. There probably was a desire from Stalin, to go in to peace negotiations with Germany up to the Battle at Kursk (remember, that the Allies actually opened up a second front in Italy in 1943), but there is no evidence, or reason to believe, that Hitler would ever take those proposals serious.
The notion that Stalin's "real enemy" was the western powers rather than the Germany is thoroughly disproved by Stalin's speeches and actions. Stalin clearly defined the Axis vs Allies in his 1939/03/10 and 1942/11/06 speeches in exactly the same manner as a bog standard liberal does today. A large part of his internal affairs effort was to allay anti-western suspicions in his own camp. What Vojtech claims changed in 1943 is not supported by anything in the Stalin archive at marxistsorg.
I wonder what the Soviet response would have been had the Germans agreed to return to the pre Barbarossa borders ? While it appears the Caucasus oil fields had suffered only limited interuptions Ukraine was ravaged and unlikely to be a significant contributor to the Soviet food requirements. In the short term at least. As any agreement would have meant the immediate termination of western aid (ie food) I think the sums don't add up. Neither side was negotiating in good faith. So what of the other scenario ? What if the Soviets had agreed to the German demands ? I think that's a lot trickier to fathom. I can just imagine the consternation at Downing street and the White House.
One thought we should consider...Himmler was also conducting full contacts with both Stalin and the Western Powers via Walter Schellingberg virtually full time from june 1943 onwards.The Morrell option was a real thing.
Then you should be encouraging me to make more videos on the North African Campaign, because as I have said, I'm working my way through the North African Campaign first, before the US arrives in Torch, then Tunis, then Sicily and then Italy.
@@TheImperatorKnight To complete the North African campaign to its historical conclusion in Tunisia would be the logical way for you to carry on, before contemplating dealing with the subsequent Allied invasions of Sicily and mainland Italy. You might be able to "cut corners" and save a lot of work either by missing out on Montgomery's slow chase of Rommel through the Western Desert and Libya, or doing just a short video on this stage of the campaign, therefore actually starting with the Torch landings then following the Allied advance east until those forces met the oncoming Panzergruppe Afrika under Rommel with the 8th Army in pursuit, taking the campaign on from there. You obviously will have your work cut out for the next few years if you want to satisfy the wishes of many of your viewers ! Good luck to you, then !
First-class presentation Tik. What do you imagine COULD have transpired if the Valkyrie plot of von Stauffenberg et al had succeeded in assassinating Hitler? What do you imagine the Soviet's reaction to have been?
Its very interesting where you reasoned Kursk may have been delayed because of peace negotiations. This behaviour would tally with a similar theory argued by some historians...that The Soviets could have begun their Berlin offensive in Feb 1945 for much, much fewer losses that what eventually occurred. But the offensive was delayed, not for the reasons officially given, but because of the Yalta conference and the post-war territorial influences being debated.
It's admirable of you to give an airing to peace talks possible between Russia and Germany. The problem is the elephant in the room - what the German army had done to the Russian people up to 1943. It would be very difficult for Stalin to reconcile the Russian people to negotiating a peace treaty with Germany after what had already taken place.
Interesting perspective, though you are not accounting for a simple fact of the whole positioning of the war from Soviet side, war as 'Great patriotic war' and 'defence of motherland' from the start. This did not allow Stalin or others around him to really go for any peace deal with Nazis that did not include 'Bring us Hitler's head on silver platter'. Trying to go for anything else would mean immediate removal of Stalin and entire high command with most likely end result of them hanging off the nearest lamp posts for treason. It's kinds hard to say or we just lost X millions of people dead and more millions kidnapped, so we will just hug and make up.
the reference in his book and other sources speak of the 43 meeting // it was never spoke of again, this is an excerpt In June, Molotov met Ribbentrop at Kirovograd, which was then within the German lines, for a discussion about the possibilities of ending the war. According to German officers who attended as technical advisers, Ribbentrop proposed as a condition of peace that Russia's future frontier should run along the Dnieper, while Molotov would not consider any thing less than the restoration of her original frontier. The discussion became hung up on the difficulty of bridging such a gap, and was broken off after a report that it had leaked out to the Western powers.”
Hity didn't need to hold the caucasas, he just needed an unending supply of cheap oil which it provided. If stalin offered hitty millions of barrels a year, at cost or below, he might have taken the deal. Especially if he got to keep all the eastern front gains. He wouldn't have needed fall blau and could've done a better job on the Western front.
In David Irving's "Hitler's War" there are several mentions of peace "feelers" between Germany and the USSR, on several occasions starting from 1942 and going all the way to the end of 1944. The main proponent of the negotiations was Joachim von Ribbentrop. According to this source the discussions were informal as Hitler never gave the permission to hold official talks (although he was informed about the discussions) and were held in Stockholm. The talks (if they happened) were low level. The Soviet ambassador in Sweden - Alexandra Kollontai - being the highest Soviet official mentioned, while on the German side we have Ribbentrop aides Rudolf Likus and later Dr. Peter Kleist (with Ribbentrop approval). No information about the content of the talks other than Hitler refusing permissions to negotiate until Germans have scored a "major victory" and commenting that the Soviets "would have never accepted" German requests anyway.
I can't cite sources, but in my readings on the Ost Front in WWII, I seem to recall seeing references to peace negotiations between the Soviets and the Germans in October 1941 and also in January 1945 when the Red Army came to a halt before continuing on into the German heartland. There's obviously room for a magisterial book-length study on this subject.
It is possible that Stalin set up peace talks through Japan to encourage US and Britain to open a second front in Europe, Stalin was a devious piece of piece of work and such an overture leaked to the Allies would give them the fear to create the second front. I am researching the diaries of the USSR ambassador in the UK to see if there is any mention. Regards
there was an argument in the EU parliament because someone dared to say that the nazi party were socialists. all the socialist mp's were all shouting at this guy and telling him he didn't know what he was talking about. the only difference I can see between the two, is that one was racist, and the other wasn't. and I left a comment saying that, only to get a load of answers calling me a 'nazi' ..lol.
the socialism in the Nazis was gone by 1935. They ran campaigns on a relatively socialist plan until circa 1930 but Hitler had basically eliminated the left wing of the NSDAP by 1934. The party was heavily funded by German industrialists and their tax and economic policies were extremely benefitial for big companies and industries and not for workers. TIK is actually believing Nazi-propaganda when saying they focused on the german worker. The Nazis cut a lot of insurances and benefits from workers and "made up" for it by creating a worker's holiday on May 1st.
The NSDAP was founded from the DAP which was by 1919 a socialist party. The SA was founded from Soldiercounsils and the early leaders of the NSDAP were actually moderate socialists. However Socialism, Communism, Bolshevism however you may call it were diametral to Hitlers political ideology from 1923 onwards. Calling yourself socialist does not mean you are one. So calling them socialist is completely incorrect when looking at their actual policies as well as Hitlers own political ideology.
Kruschev was alleged to have had contacts with germany and was part of his rift with Stalin. Kruschevs wife being ukrainian and both being facing food shortages because ukraine grain harvesting disrupted by the war there .
Hi TIK, as a swede, what was the name of the Swedish newspaper, that you could not pronounce. The news archive should be accessible - I believe - to get some more source details of mentioned talks in early1943. Cheers
According to article in New York Times January 4 1971 ( British Book Says German and Soviet Officials Met in ‘43 to Discuss Peace ) Ribbentrop and Molotov meet in June 43 behind German lines at Kirovograd but did even get close to agreeing
Apparently Bulgaria were sounded out to act as intermediary in 1941 when USSR were taking a hammering. The Bulgaria minister though told the soviets that even if Germany pushed as far as the Urals, in the end the USSR would still win. No talks ever happened as far as I'm aware.
Based on what they did? What they (Soviet union and Germany) did was they both invaded Poland in 1939. How the western allies declared war on Germany, but NOT THE SOVIET UNION TOO? Is a miracle. Only to be allied less than 2 years later. This is rarely talked about in any discussion of WW2 but is of course fact!
@@Tiberius_I Now apply that same logic to the Munich agreement, the US Lend-Lease program supplying the Soviet Union, and you know, actually fighting on the same side against Nazi Germany as _actual_ allies.
The August 1939 Pact was formally not only a non-aggression pact, but above all a friendship-pact. Again, as a matter of fact, this was a cooperation-pact in common partition of the Eastern Europe and a suport-pact in the taking over of the Western Europe by Germany.
@@michanerwinski6394 And that's why the Soviets were "allied" with the Nazis and took over Western Europe "together"? Again: Any interpretation that tries to spin the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as an "alliance" will run into massive problems interpreting Western Allies _actual_ alliance with the Soviets and what France&UK did to Czechoslovakia. In that later parts of the war Soviet atrocities were committed with the support of US American supplies and weapons, while being in an _actual_ alliance, one that's called that to this day. In that context, it's just tasteless how people try to keep revision very complex history to somehow turn it into some kind of "Ultimate good vs ultimate evil" conflict in which Nazis and Communists were supposedly best ideological, and practical, buddies on the political left.
@@n3rdy11 You asked about the status of German-Soviet relationship before June 1941, and I have answered. Whatever we think about other countries and their relations, Hitler and Stalin cooperated very closely from August 1939. Please remember that they were to meet in July 1941, and it is disputable that whether they met already in 1939. To my mind, it is not decisive to conclude in paper and name a contract as an alliance. Although they did it in paper...
I can imagine either side wanting peace; Hitler because he didn’t want a long drawn out slugging match(and who would), and thought he’d win quickly, and Stalin because the Soviets were getting the crap kicked out of them. But the idea that this could resulted in a meaningful peace is naive. There wasn’t enough “pie” there to even begin to satisfy either one of these two gluttons.
Rationally handled the German Army would have bled the USSR white but Hitler was completely irrational after 1941. This can be seen by the fact Soviet units were so depleted in 1944 they were replenishing by absorbing men in the lands they liberated. I've also heard that Stalin thought about asking for terms in the darkest days of October 1941 (as Russia had done in 1918) but some ambassador (from Rumania?) said the Soviet Union would win even if they retreated to the Urals. Stalin changed his mind.
I have read I don´t keep the source : "Zhukov is horrified because Stalin wants to make a peace with Hitler" "The offer is put the river Dnieper like the border". I discard 1941, 1942 too, the crossing of that river cost almost a million casualties in the soviet side ( A kind of D-day of the USSR). When Stalin in speeches and directives said " The wounded beast must be chased until the lair (or nest), Berlín" is obvious no chance of peace
Sorry, TIK. I love most of your videos, especially the Battlestorm series, but this sounds like a conspiracy theory, same as the rumors that the Allies also considered a potential peace with Germany at various points. You yourself said that the German failure to get the Caucasus oil spelled the end for them by late 1942. So why would Stalin be interested in a peace treaty in 1943? Why wouldn’t he want to crush the nazis and conquer Berlin? Yes, he would go on to lose more troops, but in a communist dictatorship losses don’t have the same risk for morale as in the western democracies.
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
Old Chinese military saying: You can only gain peace if you can fight. Peace talks right after Stalingrad makes perfect sense. That is the period both sides had significant victories but were exhausted, and neither side had the confident of the final victory. Before that, Stalin knew that any peace talks just meant total surrender.
When were the Tehran conference dates set? I think that may be another clue. If the dates were set after Kursk and the breakdown. He may had decided to go all in with the West.
It would have to have been sometime after the First Quebec Conference was held in August of 1943 (17-24), as he had been asked to attend that one, but had refused to come, claiming that he was too busy helping with strategy for the Eastern Front (Russia was involved with it's offensive after the Battle of Kursk at the time, and the Western Allies were finishing taking Sicily.)
a question: were the soviets planning to take over all of Germany, or even go further for the dutch, belgians and italians if there was not a D-Day or Operation Husky ?
As in 1939 Stalin weighed up who offered the best deal. In 1939 it was the Germans offering territorial expansion that won the day. Later in the war it was the West offering more war material, food and Soviet "influence" in Eastern Europe. In 1943 Ostland and Ukraine would have had to be kept by the Germans. And a 1939-style trade deal for the oil. The Germans would have been giving Russia their current border. That was the choice for Stalin. Could have gone either way 1941-43.
It's not just a territorial expansion. It's having German troops several hundred more kilometers away from Moscow. If the Germans would have attacked from the pre-1939 border, they could have gone much farther than Moscow western suburbs in Nov 1941. And while calling that an expansion don't forget the fact that the traditional narrative always skips. It's that the territories taken in 1939 had belonged to Russia before 1918 when Poland attacked Soviet Russia and seized them. So they were not just taken, they were taken back.
At least three feelers were put forward, once in 1941, in 1943 and in late 1944. Don't know the sources, but I do recall several sources stating as such. This does not include the unofficial overtures from the German anti-Hitler resistance.
If that anti nazi meeting in germany really happened then why gestapo didnt know abount it and why would they tell to soviets abount it and then do nothing. It looks like soviet propaganda, they had motive after all.
they prolly knew something of it, but much like the NKVD they're not infallible. They knew something of the Kreisau Circle yet didn't see Von Stauffenberg's plot.
Zhukov wrote a memoir in 1966 and he mentions Stalin had sent Beria out to feelers for peace in Oct Nov 1941. This was " censored" from his 1966 memoir and did not surface until 1990. I got this from John Mosier book Hitler VS Stallin The easternfront 1941-45...anything their? Opinions on this being accurate?........I still think March of 1943 is the most realistic time for a separate peace between these totalitarian states. Germans where not advancing but were at the same place they started after the previous year in 1942. Not only kursk but north Africa collapse, Sicily. Hamburg and air war, none had completely happened yet! The Germans just "miraculously" recaptured Kharkov. So March April of 1943 is the best time for EVEN talks without one side having serious momentum as a victor or loser. THE PROBLEM IS BORDERS. Stalin is not giving up Ukraine and caucuses. Hitler still had to worry about Finland Romanian oil ect so all his prewar concerns are still their if they go back to prewar borders. I think they needed a strong victory to bring Stalin to his senses. The problem is even if kursk worked out great and threatened Moscow, Stalin already showed he's bot giving up and even if he wanted to negotiate the borders are a real problem for both sides
@TIK I imagine you suffer from the same demonetization issues as other history channels do. I saw a thing about a youtube union, apparently it's part of IG Metall. IDK much about it, but figured I'd spread the word. They have claims like how the monetization bots infringe on european privacy and data protecetion laws along with false self-employment claims. Not sure if they'll get anywhere, but worth a mention.
I remember hearing about the Soviets wanting to attempt peace talks with Germany early on like 41 or 42, I think it was through the Bulgarians, the Bulgarian didn't act and basically said no to the Soviets but I dont remember why... I only heard about this once so I assumed there was nothing to it
The main reason for the Soviets to contemplate peace talks AFTER Stalingrad is that they would have then been dealing from a position of strength. Before Stalingrad the Soviet position was basically weak - okay, the Germans had been repulsed from taking Moscow, but regardless, the Germans had not been defeated nor forced back all along the whole front, therefore were at the advantage. Hitler had no reason to contemplate peace talks before Stalingrad - but afterwards ? He was too much of a fanatical gambler, he was convinced that either his V weapons (from V Rockets to H- Bombs) could still win his war, or some other kind of "miracle" would occur. Stalin was more pragmatic - if the Germans had agreed to withdraw from Russia, the fate and future of the Baltic States and East German regions and Poland would surely have been on the table as his bargaining chips. As correctly stated here, it must never be forgotten that Stalin was very happy to sit back and watch Germany slog it out against Britain and France and supply Hitler at the same time with oil and all kind of resources. Only when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union was Stalin forced to negotiate with Britain and later, with the USA. Therefore, I personally doubt that Stalin would have honoured his agreements with the western Allies if he had spotted a reasonable chance to come to an agreement with Hitler.
A very interesting video, much to think about and unpack.... 1. Starting from the top, both supreme leaders were extreme believers in cynical realpolitik, cold-hearted and ultra-hardcore in their thinking of their "destiny". Lastly on this subject, trust was not in their vocabulary, they expected the worst of others. They were also psychopaths; with impaired empathy, lack of remorse, and manic egotistical traits. They were pathological liars, delusional in many aspects, and last but not least, utterly committed to themselves as viewed from the perspective of "I am the state". Keep all of that in mind, because it makes most of their actions/decisions/mindset understandable, or at least, helps a normal rational and thinking person sort of "get it", if that is possible. 2. I suppose the basics would boil down to....when the Germans were winning, the Germans didn't want peace, when the Russians were winning, the Russians didn't want peace. But then you have a stalemate. What then? 3. So much of this goes back even before the war, when Russia and France thought about a grand alliance (Napoleonic), but the British didn't trust (or like) the Russians, therefore you end up with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Stalin took all of this as an affront, way, way back. Soviets(before they were soviets) from throughout history have always viewed themselves as surrounded, and "buffer zones" were a necessary element of any negotiations. The past glory (deep down) of Russia has been that emotional/psychological success of early 19th century, as much as Stalin wanted to make it through propaganda about the Bolshevik Revolution. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A simple attempt at understanding WW2 diplomacy/politics is impossible. If you want to have a long, complicated and serious series on that...well, there isn't one, because to do it faithfully, you would end up with 10,000 hours+. Even the history channel couldn't do it. ;-) Anyways, great things to think about. Always makes me study more about history, which is the ultimate goal. All the best. Cheers.
My question to follow this all up is: While "allies" did the germans offer the soviets to develop their oil fields for them in exchange for a trade pact? It seems like an obvious move for the germans to offer to make the Soviet oil wells highly productive, maybe help create a transportation infrastructure to the European markets in exchange for a 20, 50, 100 year trade deal of oil at 5% below market price or whatever, and throw in a little precise tooling for factories to sweeten the deal. Is this a move that was made or were the leaders too wary of each other to promote the security of the others' biggest weakness?
According to B. H. Liddell Hart Molotov traveled 200 miles behind German lines in 1943 to negotiate a separate peace with Von Ribbentrop. It failed due to Hitlers unwillingness to part with the Ukraine. Also, according to Count Ciano's famous diary the Japanese diplomatic corps were constantly attempting to persuade Stalin to join the Axis powers. Ciano himself was very much in favor of a Soviet alliance. Stalin himself was very uncomfortable with a British and American alliance probably due to their military actions in and around Murmansk and elsewhere during WWI.
Something to keep in mind despite flying in the face of "conventional wisdom". After 6 june 44, the USSR had every reason to fight on and gain as much influence and territory as possible. If or when all the archives are finally opened, it may very well be reveled that the "2nd front" was just as much to check Soviet expansion as it was to defeat Nazi Germany. I doubt there were peace feelers from the Soviet side after early 1944. From that point on it was a race to take as much land as possible. From then on it was just as much about Soviet expansion (hence keeping the Western Allies out of Eastern Europe) as the defeat of Germany. Another thing to keep in mind concerning Lend-Lease. The more equipment that went to the USSR, the less available to the Western Allies. Whether or not Lend-Lease was "needed" it was in the interest of the USSR to keep it coming.
I think a big reason why Stalin called for unconditional surrender was the Sicily landings. Now that the Allies have a toehold in Europe it would make sense that Stalin thought that the Allies weren’t as likely to double cross him.
Stalin wanted to be Hitler's ally until 44. But in January 45, Stalin shouted, "Is that bastard still alive?" So, on January 45, Stalin finally admitted himself is no longer Hitler's admirer. On 42 summer, Beria was busy at the Swedish embassy trying to send Hitler a message that the Soviets will yield Ukraine for peace. Russia was Hitler's fatal mistake. He should have left Russia alone, or at least should have taken Stalin's peace offer. What destroyed Germany was the massive resources and ammunitions from FDR's lend-lease. Thinking about that the 3 atom bombs dropped in Japan (one was not detonated) were actually the stolen Nazi A-bombs, Hitler had absolutely no reason to haste conquering Russia. Otherwise, we are now living in a better world. No federal reserve.
Overtures to peace were in place pre Operation Citadelle in May - June 1943 and it was by both leaders.Hitler because he feared offensive failure with Italy collapsed.Stalin because he feared defensive failure at their strongest and knowledge of Hitlers intent.Zhukov was the one with backbone and convinced Stalin they USSR couldn’t lose.Its mentioned if I remember correctly in the big study book Kursk The Battle Of Prokhorovka by Christopher A Lawrence via The Dupuy Institute 2015.Every ally to Germany Hungary Romania Italy Finland Vichy French and the Japanese wanted peace but for individual reasons,if Sicily had been invaded in June Hitler May have been more for it,a might have been of history.
Although Germany racked up some victories after December 1941, December 1941 Was the turning point, failing to take Moscow and the Americans entering the war was a game changer.
Hitler wanted Kursk to demonstrate a show of strength, to improve the outcome of a real negotiation, and would not delay due to these low-level preliminary "feelers."
How on Earth did TIK manage to answer this question without ever mentioning Casablanca Conference, western and Soviet position before and after the Conference, and the outcome of it? Especially in light of Stalin's unconditional capitulation demands.
We will never be sure! Russia can even say : Yes we play with Hitler a few weeks , only to buy time! This is one of the grey spots, that will remain grey for ever! All States have play that type of game.
@TIK Very interesting video. Re the 'second front'. At the time of D-Day, in early June 1944, the large majority of the naval forces were British and Commonwealth, a slight majority of the land forces were British and Commonwealth (ie, Canadian) and at least half the air forces were British and Commonwealth. Any 'second front' in north west Europe in 1943 could only have been launched by a mainly British Commonwealth force and it would have been much smaller, and less well equipped, than the actual forces used in Normandy in June-August 1944. American forces had to be raised, trained and then convoyed to Britain from the USA with the available shipping, and, of course, the largest part of the United States Navy, and a good many of their other forces, were tied up fighting Japan from 1942-45. A 'second front', in northern France, in 1943 was never much more than a fantasy and, had it happened, it could have been defeated (and certainly would have suffered far more casualties) by German forces who would have enjoyed very much better air cover in 1943 than they did in 1944.
I wouldn't put much faith in Soviet reports of this German peace conference. The police state in Germany was no less pervasive than in the Soviet Union. If there weren't anti-war conferences in the Soviet Union I doubt they existed in Germany. The practical effect of the Normandy Invasion was that Western Europe did not fall within the Soviet sphere of influence. Without Normandy, there's no reason to believe the Russians wouldn't have gone all the way to Paris. When asked at the Potsdam conference if Stalin was happy with his victory he said that Tsar Alexander I at least took Paris.
Part about soviet economy collapsing in 42 and "needing" LL is nonsense. Total amount of LL supplies to SU amounted to around 5-7% of total soviet war effort, throughput the war and half of it arrived in 44, when fate of this war was already set in stone - soviets victory was all but guaranteed. Normandy landing maybe shortened war by a few months, at the most, but it made no notable impact on it. Amount of supplies that soviets received in 41 was non-existing, it made literally zero impact during that stage of war. Partially because first shipment arrived only in October. And while soviets received almost 20 times more in 42, impressive nature of this number is misleading(as with most numbers used to inflate LL importance to SU) due to extremely low amount of supplies received in 41. Simple fact of the matter is that during most critical time for SU, support that soviets received from their allies was mostly in form of promises. _...soviets and Germans were actually allied prior to Barbarossa..._ They had trade deals. They had MRP neutrality pact. But despite negotiations happening, they never ever had an alliance. One would expect that somebody who runs a history channel would know the difference. Considering that it is rather basic bit of knowledge. Stalin was "more open to peace talks" because he was at a friggin WAR with Germany. This is what one does when he is at war with somebody. Especially if that war costs you a lot and it outcome is anything but decided. This utterly moronic notion that sharing ideology to some small degree, somehow makes different states mandatory candidates for alliances, it utterly baffling to me. Or idea that because Marx was German, it makes SU automatically wanting to be an ally of Germany. Its stupid beyond any reason. This video was at least 4 times longer than it should have been. As far as informative part goes, with most of it being pointless mumbling, that lead nowhere, nor conveyed any information(useful of otherwise). First 5 minutes could have been conveyed with 2 sentences: "There may or may not have been negotiations between SU and Germany during war period. We simply dont know for sure." And number of strawmen and empty assertions, with no basis whatsoever(aside of "socialism bad, therefore anything that shows socialism in bad light must be true"), was astonishing. Like those prolonged rants from category of how Stalin hated West, so he was willing to negotiate with Hitler purely because of that. Channel becomes more and more propagandist, rather than historical.
"Part about soviet economy collapsing in 42 and "needing" LL is nonsense." Soviet troops consumed half as many rations per soldier as US troops in WW2 even WITH Lend Lease.1 I also have several sources that point out that the Soviet soldiers were malnourished in 1941, let alone in 1942-43 when the Ukraine and Northern Caucasus were under German control. But since you're not the only one to question this, it looks like I'm going to have to make a video about it and crush your ramblings with evidence. Also carving up Eastern Europe is not a "trade deal" or "non-aggression pact". National Socialist Germany and the Marxist Socialist Soviet Union were allies in all but name in 1939-1941. 1. Tuyll, H. “Feeding the Bear: American Aid to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945.” Greenwood Press, 1989. Table 39. Supplies Consumed by Average Soldier (Long tons per soldier, per month)
@@TheImperatorKnight _Soviet troops consumed half as many rations per soldier as US troops in WW2 even WITH Lend Lease._ And ? Is that supposed to prove something ? I suggest you actually look at numbers of how much food was shipped vs how much was produced and consumed in SU itself. For example US supplied like 80% of canned foods that soviet soldiers consumed, yet canned rations accounted to only about 10% of their rations. Or something along those lines, dont remember exact numbers. _I also have several sources that point out that the Soviet soldiers were malnourished in 1941, let alone in 1942-43 when the Ukraine and Northern Caucasus were under German control._ Again, and ? None of those points prove that LL somehow saved Red Army. Get me actual numbers and then im willing to change my point of view. _National Socialist Germany and the Marxist Socialist Soviet Union were allies in all but name in 1939-1941._ By what metric ? How to hell did Germany and SU had an alliance, if Axis powers had an Anti-Commintern Pact ? How exactly did this arrangement worked ? And most importantly, how to fuck did they had an alliance, when Hitler explicitly rebuffed soviet attempts at having closer political relationships. Germany-SU relationships were as much of an alliance as it is between me and cashier at supermarket, where i but groceries.
David Reynolds has presented a discussion between the Soviet Union and Bulgaria in late 1941 (BBC, 2011: 1941 and the Man of Steel) in which ideas were explored as to what territorial gains Germany would accept for peace. But the discussion ended soon afterwards.
Great job as always! I took the long document at 15:00 as Moscow trying to show there is a peace movement aka a deafitist mindset in Germany! Moscow wants the Soviet citizens to think the Germans are overwhelmed and trying to get rid of Hitler And if it leaks to Germany that this "meeting" took place all the better, bc it gets the Germans second guessing themselves, wondering about resistance from within and it's trying to create paranoia and lower morale with in Germany, from the top to bottom! I had come across a cpl sources that said their were negotiations going on in 1943 and J.S. and A.H. couldn't agree on a border.( they didn't talk in person of course) The Germans wanted to negotiate with strength so when they won the battle of kursk, and threatening Moscow again, the Germans could negotiate out of strength. Because the Germans did not win at Kursk the idea slipped away, and Soviets grew stronger and both sides lost will to negotiate for their respective reasons. I've heard Goebels name come up in these supposed negotiations so I'm wondering was it was mention in his diary? Also Maybe they thinking it would be like ww1 where Russia quits and Germany could concentrate on west but again after Kursk and definitely after late 43 early 44 I don't see Stalin going for it.
