Should we be siding with the Soviets or the Nazis? [1935]

[Greed and Death]

Not really an option since they pretty much sided with each other against Poland.

[The Archregimancy]

I saw we should ignore both the loonies of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and side with Poland

Side with Poland on what?

Indeed, did not Herr Hitler show his peaceful intentions towards Poland by signing a ten year Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact just this last year?

I understand why some of our German friends still resent the Polish corridor and the isolation of Danzig, but Herr Hitler seems committed to resolving this issue through diplomacy.

Not really an option since they pretty much sided with each other against Poland.

Indeed, which is why the Bolsheviks also signed a long-term non-aggression pact with Poland last year.

I cannot understand all of this focus on Poland here in 1935; both Germany and the Bolsheviks are newly committed to recognising the reborn nation's independence, and to resolve differences through peaceful negotiation. This isn't 1795, you know.

[Mkuki]

Side with Poland on what?

Indeed, did not Herr Hitler show his peaceful intentions towards Poland by signing a ten year Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact just this last year?

I understand why some of our German friends still resent the Polish corridor and the isolation of Danzig, but Herr Hitler seems committed to resolving this issue through diplomacy.

Not really an option since they pretty much sided with each other against Poland.

Indeed, which is why the Bolsheviks also signed a long-term non-aggression pact with Poland last year.

I cannot understand all of this focus on Poland here in 1935; both Germany and the Bolsheviks are newly committed to recognising the reborn nation's independence, and to resolve differences through peaceful negotiation. This isn't 1795, you know.

Exactly.

[Corenea]

I saw we should ignore both the loonies of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and side with Poland

Side with Poland on what?

You rather side with Nazis, Communists, or Poles/

[Mkuki]

Side with Poland on what?

You rather side with Nazis, Communists, or Poles/

Why should we side with any of them? I say stick with the French and British. Both are democracies and both are strong militarily with more than enough strength to halt any country's expansionist tendencies. Not to mention that Poland is currently under the rule of a military dictator. Why would we support Józef Piłsudski, the man who rid Poland of effective democracy?

[Corenea]

You rather side with Nazis, Communists, or Poles/

Why should we side with any of them? I say stick with the French and British. Both are democracies and both are strong militarily with more than enough strength to halt any country's expansionist tendencies. Not to mention that Poland is currently under the rule of a military dictator. Why would we support Józef Piłsudski, the man who rid Poland of effective democracy?

Of course we're siding with France and Great Britain, they're our allies but what about the Eastern Europe, who do you feel we should side with?

[Mkuki]

Why should we side with any of them? I say stick with the French and British. Both are democracies and both are strong militarily with more than enough strength to halt any country's expansionist tendencies. Not to mention that Poland is currently under the rule of a military dictator. Why would we support Józef Piłsudski, the man who rid Poland of effective democracy?

Of course we're siding with France and Great Britain, they're our allies but what about the Eastern Europe, who do you feel we should side with?

None of them. There's little evidence that Poland can't handle itself, Germany is weak and vulnerable, and the Soviet Union is a backwards mess.

[New Chalcedon]

Credit to Divair for the idea.

I get that nobody really likes choosing the lesser of multiple evils, but then again, as Americans we have to do that every four years. So now, looking ahead in the realm of foreign policy, we must again make a similar decision though perhaps a more difficult one.

With rising nationalism and the presence of the Nazi party in Germany, and the odd backwards attitude of the Soviet Union, European politics is becoming more and more tense. I think we all see more tension coming in the years ahead - only time will tell whether or not it is extremely violent.

As a world power even in our current economic conditions, I think we need to decide which evil we would side with if push comes to shove.

I understand that many of you are probably isolationist, but the premise of my question is that if we absolutely HAVE to, who should we have a friendlier foreign policy with in the coming decades? Germany or the Soviet Union?

Personally, I think we have to look at who each entity is a risk to. Germany is a risk to our Western allies, while the Soviets are a risk to Eastern Europe and Central Asia. We must stand by our allies and recognize the real threat. I choose the Soviets in this disgusting decision we might have to make.

But what do you all think?

Side with the weaker, and then as it gains ascendancy, with the other - never to the point of declaring war, but always with covert supply of goods for their war machines, and with raw materials for the factories that produce same. In practical terms, side with Comrade Stalin until he is clearly in the ascendant, then taper off our support of him and instead start supporting Herr Hitler. Put them to fighting each other (as their ideologies demand them to do) until they're both so weakened that we can walk in and pick up the pieces, restore democracy to Germany and re-enthrone the Tsar in Russia as a Constitutional monarch.

Yes, yes, I know - the Tsar was Not Good. But he maintained stability in the largest country in the world, and Imperial Russia was a decent neighbour as European countries go - if nothing else, we should remember that they willingly sold us Alaska for a low price less than 70 years ago. And the simple fact is this: By their lurch from monarchy to Communist dictatorship, the Russian people have well demonstrated that they're not ready for democracy. A nice constitutional Monarchy sounds better, will better accustom the Russian people to the awesome responsibilities of self-government and will maintain stability until the inevitable desire for a Republic grows and the Tsar is eventually ousted - hopefully, with much less bloodshed the second time round. You must remember - not everyone is so naturally suited to a Republican form of life (and the responsibilities it entails) as the American people, who are exceptionally advanced on every social level there is.

Some might accuse this plan of being positively Machiavellian - but where we presently watch as Europe is afflicted with two sources of evil, this plan will see to both of their removals at once, unlike picking one and sticking with it.

[Nazis in Space]

Impossible, the war to end all wars is behind us.

A conflict of that scale and magnitude will naver happen, again.

Hitler is rearming Germany and has expansionist intentions.

*Hitler Tear :_;*

What evidence is there of that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-German_Naval_Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf

So... Agreeing to arms limitations (Which wont happen for another four months, btw) == THREAT TO THE WORLD?

Talk about paranoia.

I've already covered the issue of my bestseller in the linked post, which references my widely publicised interview in the French press.

Yours sincerely,

Adolf Hitler

[Ashmoria]

pffft. we can deal with that IF it ever happens. the soviets seem only interested in their own neighborhood not in spreading war all over the world. we can counter any trouble they may cause here in supporting our home grown communist parties by doing what mr Roosevelt has been doing since he got elected--improving the economy and putting men back to work. when everyone is working no one will be interested in communism any more.

everything else is Europe's problem and only Europe can solve those problems.

And what happens when the war gets hot without any cool heads to smooth it over and the Russian hordes start rampaging across the continent? We can certainly improve our own economy, but what about the ruins of the French and British economies? Once the Soviets are marching through Berlin (if they do which, without support, there numbers suggest they would unless the German military makes massive leaps and bounds in the next few years), what makes you think they will stop when the French and British communists call for liberation? We can not afford to have our greatest trade partners and debt-holders to go under, and have the peoples and workshops of Europe turned against us; the level of production would force us to dump even more resources into a defense of the Homeland, and likely force us into the status of Garrison state merely to keep the Communists out of our hemisphere? A war in Europe could most certainly affect our position here in America, given enough time, so why not try to keep the situation as peaceful and calm as possible, by supporting the side who has expressed less aggressiveness and pre-empt possible Soviet attacks? Is that not a less violent and less expensive way of both protecting American interests and values (Self-Determination, Progressive Capitalism, and Peace) then simply waiting for the crisis to erupt into full blown war? What would it have been like if we had offered to mediate between the Great Powers during the early stages of the Great War, or even after the fall of Russia, by threatening to cut off our supplies to the Entente unless they came to the table for a viable peace deal? How many of our men and theres would have survived? How much of a crisis and chaos would have been averted in the Orient and Balkans if multiculturalism or anti-colonialism had been supported?

The world will not turn out in a way we will find acceptable unless we take at least a semi-active hand in shaping it that way.

you are a warmonger!

we have peace now. the problems of Europe are not ours. no matter what happens over there they will still need to trade with us. or we can start building up our own neighborhood--the Americas--lands that don't have the same "kill them all and let god sort it out" attitude towards war that Europe has.

[Ashmoria]

This whole Communism idea is lunacy. What's the incentive for you to work hard when the government is only going to take what you earn and give it away? And with the Reds planting bombs and stirring up trouble over here, I just don't trust them.

This Hitler guy has some pretty good ideas, though the way he's setting himself up reminds me of the Mexican "presidents" during the revolution. But I'm not really worried about him, it's not like Germany would want a war after what happened the last time.

word!

sure he might want to try to annex the "german lands" to the east. but maybe that is only right. I don't know, im not german.

the thought that Germany is wanting to go into another great war is unlikely. for WHAT? the last war proved how destructive and useless large scale wars are. germans are smart enough to take that lesson.

[Angleter]

Red Russia is bent on world domination. They have said all along that their end goal is the subjugation of the entire planet to their evil ideology. I read with great interest Gareth Jones' writings about what was going on in the Ukraine just two years ago - and look what they did to him! Hitler's Germany, on the other hand, is merely reclaiming Germany's basic sovereignty. It's gone 15 years since the end of the Great War - it's ludicrous that the Saar should be French-occupied, or that Germany shouldn't be allowed to field a proper army. All of this complaining about the German menace is just French paranoia - they all talk about the need to keep the Rhineland demilitarised, but nobody ever talks about the huge French fortifications right on the German border. Who's threatening who here? And I'm not a fan of this Hitler, and I know he wrote that book where he said about invading Poland, but come on - that was ten years ago. People'll say anything to get elected, anyway, and now Hitler's a world leader, it'll be obvious to him that you can only solve these issues diplomatically these days.

[Granadeseret]

And what happens when the war gets hot without any cool heads to smooth it over and the Russian hordes start rampaging across the continent? We can certainly improve our own economy, but what about the ruins of the French and British economies? Once the Soviets are marching through Berlin (if they do which, without support, there numbers suggest they would unless the German military makes massive leaps and bounds in the next few years), what makes you think they will stop when the French and British communists call for liberation? We can not afford to have our greatest trade partners and debt-holders to go under, and have the peoples and workshops of Europe turned against us; the level of production would force us to dump even more resources into a defense of the Homeland, and likely force us into the status of Garrison state merely to keep the Communists out of our hemisphere? A war in Europe could most certainly affect our position here in America, given enough time, so why not try to keep the situation as peaceful and calm as possible, by supporting the side who has expressed less aggressiveness and pre-empt possible Soviet attacks? Is that not a less violent and less expensive way of both protecting American interests and values (Self-Determination, Progressive Capitalism, and Peace) then simply waiting for the crisis to erupt into full blown war? What would it have been like if we had offered to mediate between the Great Powers during the early stages of the Great War, or even after the fall of Russia, by threatening to cut off our supplies to the Entente unless they came to the table for a viable peace deal? How many of our men and theres would have survived? How much of a crisis and chaos would have been averted in the Orient and Balkans if multiculturalism or anti-colonialism had been supported?

The world will not turn out in a way we will find acceptable unless we take at least a semi-active hand in shaping it that way.

you are a warmonger!

we have peace now. the problems of Europe are not ours. no matter what happens over there they will still need to trade with us. or we can start building up our own neighborhood--the Americas--lands that don't have the same "kill them all and let god sort it out" attitude towards war that Europe has.

And you sir are a spineless coward who is unable to see past his own shoreline. Perhaps before the rise of Communism and its globally-focused ideology, I would agree with you, but don't you see that Bolshevism is as much a threat to us at home as it is in Europe? Just because we refused to intervene for our interests and ideology in Europe should the need arise does not mean they will do the same in kind, while Latin America is already annoyed enough with the heaviness of our hand. You would have us twiddle our thumbs until the Eurasian continent is overrun with the Red Hordes, and then when you could stick your head in the sand no longer, would put us in a situation were were we will be forced to become a Facist garrison-state of our, dominating or even being forced to prevenatively conquer the Latin American states to keep the Communists from our doorstep... and then, my friend, we would find ourselves in a war far, far exceeding the costs and death of anything that is confined to Europe.

Bolshevism much be contained like the cancer it is at all costs. Elsewise, to drive it back later will take a far heavier toll on our nation then it would while we still have those who are willing to stand with us

[Shrillland]

Side with Poland on what?

Indeed, did not Herr Hitler show his peaceful intentions towards Poland by signing a ten year Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact just this last year?

I understand why some of our German friends still resent the Polish corridor and the isolation of Danzig, but Herr Hitler seems committed to resolving this issue through diplomacy.

If he's resolved to diplomacy, then how come he's reopening the Führungsakademie and has announced the re-creation of both the old Luftwaffe and a conscripted army? If he wants a diplomatic solution he's not going to achieve it by smashing the Treaty of Versailles to pieces.

[Mefpan]

Indeed, did not Herr Hitler show his peaceful intentions towards Poland by signing a ten year Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact just this last year?

I understand why some of our German friends still resent the Polish corridor and the isolation of Danzig, but Herr Hitler seems committed to resolving this issue through diplomacy.

If he's resolved to diplomacy, then how come he's reopening the Führungsakademie and has announced the re-creation of both the old Luftwaffe and a conscripted army? If he wants a diplomatic solution he's not going to achieve it by smashing the Treaty of Versailles to pieces.

[2014]Interestingly, this is about February 1935. We're just one or two months before Germany actually re-introduced conscription.[/2014]

Quite on the contrary. The Treaty of Versailles was a disgusting construct said to be founded upon the principles of self-determination of nations, whereas the principles of self-determination ended where ignoring them would benefit the French and where forcing them through would, as it seems to have been far more important to decision-makers back then, hurt the Germans.

France has never felt easy with an united Germany on the map of Europe - had she gotten the full extent of their wishes, she would have annexed the left bank of the Rhine and broken the rest of Germany into tiny states. Under no circumstances would she agree to any peace- and meaningful revision of the Versailles treaty.

Re-armament would be Germany's only chance to force the French to the negotiating table on even footing - otherwise Germany is doomed to bow eternally before France who, with her military power, would doubtlessly and effectively threaten Germany into subservience at the threat of war if meaningful revisions to the treaty were even so much as suggested to be brought to debate.

[Nazis in Space]

Indeed, did not Herr Hitler show his peaceful intentions towards Poland by signing a ten year Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact just this last year?

I understand why some of our German friends still resent the Polish corridor and the isolation of Danzig, but Herr Hitler seems committed to resolving this issue through diplomacy.

If he's resolved to diplomacy, then how come he's reopening the Führungsakademie and has announced the re-creation of both the old Luftwaffe and a conscripted army? If he wants a diplomatic solution he's not going to achieve it by smashing the Treaty of Versailles to pieces.

When all your neighbors are covered in guns and planes and cannons and tanks... You know, it might not be such a bad idea, and it certainly isn't morally questionable, nor threatening, for your own country to be appropriately armed as well, you know.

It's Germany that's threatened by heavily armed neighbors, not the other way around. You want to refuse it the ability to actually defend its sovereignity?

And let's not forget that Versailles also stipulated disarmament of the ententé powers.

Never happened.

So why should Germany adhere to the arms stipulations of a treaty that the ententé powers of old ignored start to finish?

Sincerely,

Adolf Hitler

[Wisconsin9]

The Soviets, although in saying so I think more of fighting the Japanese than the Germans. Russia and Japan, as you know, don't exactly have the best history, while Berlin and Tokyo continue to grow closer. The Japs are the real threat to the United States—Hitler has no quarrel with us, and the Russians are a bit... behind the times, whereas our influence in Asia and the Pacific is a threat to Japanese military expansion, and while we would eventually win a war on our own it would be difficult and extremely costly. Having a relatively strong ally in the region will deter Japan from turning her eyes towards the Phillipines, Guam, maybe even Hawaii, and annoying Hitler and our own rabid anti-communists is an acceptable trade.

[AiliailiA]

This being a hypothetical for me (as I was not alive in 1935), I feel free to consider myself a German voter of that time.

I will not side with the Communist Party (KPD) because they are opposed to the very existence of our Democratic Republic. I have sympathy for their agenda of worker control over the means of production and their strong defense of the rights of women, but I cannot vote for a party which would remove my own right to vote, and that of my honorable opponents.

My vote goes to the Social Democratic Party (SPD), for their practical and democratic platform of social equity. I would urge them to be stronger on worker ownership of the means of production, like the KPD, but ultimately I would be happier to see them in coalition with the Centrists than with the Communists.

I distrust NSDAP for just the same reason as I distrust KPD: they ask for my vote just to take my vote away from me. And they are worse, because they seek to turn German against German. I will have none of that. It is traitorous!

[Corenea]

This being a hypothetical for me (as I was not alive in 1935), I feel free to consider myself a German voter of that time.

I will not side with the Communist Party (KPD) because they are opposed to the very existence of our Democratic Republic. I have sympathy for their agenda of worker control over the means of production and their strong defense of the rights of women, but I cannot vote for a party which would remove my own right to vote, and that of my honorable opponents.

My vote goes to the Social Democratic Party (SPD), for their practical and democratic platform of social equity. I would urge them to be stronger on worker ownership of the means of production, like the KPD, but ultimately I would be happier to see them in coalition with the Centrists than with the Communists.

I distrust NSDAP for just the same reason as I distrust KPD: they ask for my vote just to take my vote away from me. And they are worse, because they seek to turn German against German. I will have none of that. It is traitorous!

I think you're in the wrong thread. The thread asked whether or not we should side with Nazi Germany (shit) or Soviet Union (piss)

[AiliailiA]

This being a hypothetical for me (as I was not alive in 1935), I feel free to consider myself a German voter of that time.

I will not side with the Communist Party (KPD) because they are opposed to the very existence of our Democratic Republic. I have sympathy for their agenda of worker control over the means of production and their strong defense of the rights of women, but I cannot vote for a party which would remove my own right to vote, and that of my honorable opponents.

My vote goes to the Social Democratic Party (SPD), for their practical and democratic platform of social equity. I would urge them to be stronger on worker ownership of the means of production, like the KPD, but ultimately I would be happier to see them in coalition with the Centrists than with the Communists.

I distrust NSDAP for just the same reason as I distrust KPD: they ask for my vote just to take my vote away from me. And they are worse, because they seek to turn German against German. I will have none of that. It is traitorous!

I think you're in the wrong thread. The thread asked whether or not we should side with Nazi Germany (shit) or Soviet Union (piss)

I tried to honor the OP's rather interesting attempt to meld roleplaying (NS forums other than General) with OOC debate (General).

Seeing your idiotic reply, I think maybe yes I am in the wrong thread. And maybe the thread is in the wrong forum.

*checks*

Nope. This thread is in General. Maybe you should check your own location before offering directions.

[Corenea]

I think you're in the wrong thread. The thread asked whether or not we should side with Nazi Germany (shit) or Soviet Union (piss)

I tried to honor the OP's rather interesting attempt to meld roleplaying (NS forums other than General) with OOC debate (General).

Seeing your idiotic reply, I think maybe yes I am in the wrong thread. And maybe the thread is in the wrong forum.

*checks*

Nope. This thread is in General. Maybe you should check your own location before offering directions.

Idiotic? I'm just saying that your post may be in a wrong area because we already had a Historical Debate thread on voting in the Weimer election between an Independent, a Nazi, a Social Democrat, and a Nationalist and when I saw your post, I thought you might have entered a wrong thread since this thread is about a US descision on whether or not they should side with the USSR or Nazi Germany, nothing about voting for them.

[AiliailiA]

Well OK. I suck at role-playing, which is why I avoid it.

Leaving this thread now. And to avoid making a fool of myself in any future role-playing thread in General ...

*ignore Historical Debates*

No disrespect to any of you. It's just not my thing.

[Farnhamia]

I tried to honor the OP's rather interesting attempt to meld roleplaying (NS forums other than General) with OOC debate (General).

Seeing your idiotic reply, I think maybe yes I am in the wrong thread. And maybe the thread is in the wrong forum.

*checks*

Nope. This thread is in General. Maybe you should check your own location before offering directions.

Idiotic? I'm just saying that your post may be in a wrong area because we already had a Historical Debate thread on voting in the Weimer election between an Independent, a Nazi, a Social Democrat, and a Nationalist and when I saw your post, I thought you might have entered a wrong thread since this thread is about a US descision on whether or not they should side with the USSR or Nazi Germany, nothing about voting for them.

How about the two of you calm down?

Coronea, replying in the persona of a German voter is not completely outside the scope of the thread. Ailiailia misunderstood, is all.

Ailiailia, no need to ignore the thread starter and I doubt that will keep you from seeing his/her threads, though I have to admit I've never done the experiment. Your choice. Some of the debates have been interesting.

[Bojikami]

The USSR. While Stalin may have committed war crimes, I believe if America were to side with the Nazi's, it would be going against everything America stands for.

[Darwinish Brentsylvania]

Side with Poland.

Poland! And France! And Britain! And America! And Canada! And Australia!