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

[Shaggai]

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?

Sir,

I read your recent editorial in the New York Times regarding whether to "side" with the National Socialist government of Germany or the Bolshevik Soviet regime with considerable interest.

What confuses me is that the Times seems to think that there's some sort of choice, which makes me suspect that your newspaper's entire editorial board is overrun with Reds.

Soviet Communism is antithetical to the American way of life. I remind you of what the late President Coolidge said to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in the nation's capital some 10 years back (an event which I trust your representatives attended): "After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world." Soviet Communism directly attacks this capitalistic underpinning of American society, and its rise is a direct threat to our values.

In contrast, National Socialism has performed economic miracles via a corporatist union between government and leading businesses that is not only wholly compatible with 'buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world', but which is reflected in aspects of President Roosevelt's 'New Deal'.

Furthermore, many of our friends in Britain have observed the extent to which capitalist ideals align with Herr Hitler's plans. I would draw your attention to several recent editorials in The Daily Mail which praise the "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine" of Herr Hitler's government, rightly urging us to ignore "a few isolated acts of violence ... which have been generalized, multiplied and exaggerated to give the impression that Nazi rule is a bloodthirsty tyranny." The only British politician who seems to seriously oppose National Socialism is Mr. Winston Churchill, an isolated has-been whom many of our British friends suspect to be dangerously unhinged.

Herr Hitler also has sound ideas about the Jews, ideas which are shared by many patriotic Americans, such as Mr. Henry Ford of Detroit. If you have not already done so, I would urge you to read Mr. Ford's four International Jew pamphlets, particularly pamphlet four, Aspects of Jewish Power in the United States. In contrast, the Bolshevik regime is riddled by the pernicious influence of international Jewry.

In any case, the so-called "choice" is clear. National Socialist Germany is more clearly aligned with our long-standing economic interests and traditions, our allies prefer the robust 'commonsense conservative' government of National Socialist Germany, and only National Socialist Germany is ready to assist us to defeat international Jewry.

Returning to Mr. Ford, it is not for nothing that Herr Hitler told the Detroit News some four years ago that he finds Mr. Ford to be an "inspiration" and wishes to implement the patriotic American capitalist ideals exemplified by Detroit's foremost car manufacturer in making his new 'volkswagen'. What better sign is there of the extent to which our mutual interests align?

That you have presented which of these emerging powers interests best align with those of the United States as a "choice" only shows the extent of the increasingly fantastic reporting to which the New York Times has become subject since moving to 1475 Broadway 30 years ago. Next you'll be trying to tell us that the Dodgers will leave Brooklyn for some second-rate Western city like Los Angeles.

Sincerely Yours,

Henry H. Morton IV
East Quogue, Long Island

While Herr Hitler does have some good ideas regarding the Jews, and is in many ways better than the Soviets, he is frankly insane. His obsession with Lebensraum leads me to fear that he will start another war, which we cannot afford. The Soviets at least don't seem like they will invade anyone, due to Stalin's focus on Socialism in one country. Stalin's policies may be objectionable, but at least he will not start another war.

[Historical Debates]

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.

I agree! We must keep America's ideals in mind.

*7 years later* *Japenese internment camps*

[Corenea]

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.

I agree! We must keep America's ideals in mind.

*7 years later* *Japenese internment camps*

Can we just let them kill each other?

[Granadeseret]

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.

I agree! We must keep America's ideals in mind.

*7 years later* *Japenese internment camps*

[2014] And we know this how... [/2014]

Please, good sir. The only reason the American government would every have for interning Japanese Americans en-mass is if they either start defecting en-mass to the Empire and war exists between us, or to take them into protective custody if mob "justice" is being leveed against them by frightened civilians.

[Ashmoria]

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

whoa. really.

it is un-American to start a war with people who aren't doing anything to us. that means the Nazis as well as the Bolsheviks.

sure we have our own homegrown communists. we also have more than enough ways to deal with them on our own. we don't need to pick a fight with a country on the other side of the earth in order to keep control of a few troublemakers.

[Granadeseret]

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

whoa. really.

it is un-American to start a war with people who aren't doing anything to us. that means the Nazis as well as the Bolsheviks.

sure we have our own homegrown communists. we also have more than enough ways to deal with them on our own. we don't need to pick a fight with a country on the other side of the earth in order to keep control of a few troublemakers.

We're not going to just get into a directy shooting war just because we're economically and diplomatically supporting a country. What on earth makes you think we're making an alliance? This discussion is merely about who we should have a freindlier forgien policy to [2014] Read the OP more carefully [/2014]. We should be, for our own interests as well as a stable balance of power in Europe, be more freindly and levee our support of the Nationalist policies of Germany over the Bolshevik policies of the Soviets. I am not proposing eliminating Communism in fire: I'm saying it will save us alot of trouble in the long run if we put effort into containing it where it already is.

[Seangoli]

I do believe a certain degree of pragmatism is necessary here. If the absolute worst case scenario would befall us, and a grand War similar to what broke out some 20 years past, which is the "Winning" side? The threat that Germany poses to the peace of Europe is growing every day; it is unlikely that they would ally with the greater Europe, in particular our allies. Their ideals are at complete odds with that of the Soviets, meaning any alliance or truce between them is tenuous at best. Germany has made marvelous leaps economically, but ultimately the country is resource starved with very little ability to produce a war machine large enough to combat our Western allies and simultaneously hold off a Soviet advance from the East. If a war were to break out, Germany would be entirely encircled by enemies, and would be reduced to shambles in short time. As we speak, the French are working on an agreement with the Soviets (If rumor is to be believed) to undertake exactly this.

Siding with the Germans, although more "idealistically" sound, is far less pragmatic. They would quickly find themselves encircled by enemies, and would starve themselves out in short order. A war in the region would likely be over almost as quickly as it begins, and Germany would find itsel dismantled. To ensure that our nation comes out on the winning side, we must and should ally with the Soviets regardless of idealistic differences.

[Corenea]

whoa. really.

it is un-American to start a war with people who aren't doing anything to us. that means the Nazis as well as the Bolsheviks.

sure we have our own homegrown communists. we also have more than enough ways to deal with them on our own. we don't need to pick a fight with a country on the other side of the earth in order to keep control of a few troublemakers.

We're not going to just get into a directy shooting war just because we're economically and diplomatically supporting a country. What on earth makes you think we're making an alliance? This discussion is merely about who we should have a freindlier forgien policy to [2014] Read the OP more carefully [/2014]. We should be, for our own interests as well as a stable balance of power in Europe, be more freindly and levee our support of the Nationalist policies of Germany over the Bolshevik policies of the Soviets. I am not proposing eliminating Communism in fire: I'm saying it will save us alot of trouble in the long run if we put effort into containing it where it already is.

How about neither? Let them kill each other, that'll save us the trouble of dealing with communists and Nazis

[European Socialist Republic]

The Soviets, of course! And I'm not saying this because I want to turn the USA into the USSSA...

[The Archregimancy]

Sir,

I read your recent editorial in the New York Times regarding whether to "side" with the National Socialist government of Germany or the Bolshevik Soviet regime with considerable interest.

What confuses me is that the Times seems to think that there's some sort of choice, which makes me suspect that your newspaper's entire editorial board is overrun with Reds.

Soviet Communism is antithetical to the American way of life. I remind you of what the late President Coolidge said to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in the nation's capital some 10 years back (an event which I trust your representatives attended): "After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world." Soviet Communism directly attacks this capitalistic underpinning of American society, and its rise is a direct threat to our values.

In contrast, National Socialism has performed economic miracles via a corporatist union between government and leading businesses that is not only wholly compatible with 'buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world', but which is reflected in aspects of President Roosevelt's 'New Deal'.

Furthermore, many of our friends in Britain have observed the extent to which capitalist ideals align with Herr Hitler's plans. I would draw your attention to several recent editorials in The Daily Mail which praise the "sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine" of Herr Hitler's government, rightly urging us to ignore "a few isolated acts of violence ... which have been generalized, multiplied and exaggerated to give the impression that Nazi rule is a bloodthirsty tyranny." The only British politician who seems to seriously oppose National Socialism is Mr. Winston Churchill, an isolated has-been whom many of our British friends suspect to be dangerously unhinged.

Herr Hitler also has sound ideas about the Jews, ideas which are shared by many patriotic Americans, such as Mr. Henry Ford of Detroit. If you have not already done so, I would urge you to read Mr. Ford's four International Jew pamphlets, particularly pamphlet four, Aspects of Jewish Power in the United States. In contrast, the Bolshevik regime is riddled by the pernicious influence of international Jewry.

In any case, the so-called "choice" is clear. National Socialist Germany is more clearly aligned with our long-standing economic interests and traditions, our allies prefer the robust 'commonsense conservative' government of National Socialist Germany, and only National Socialist Germany is ready to assist us to defeat international Jewry.

Returning to Mr. Ford, it is not for nothing that Herr Hitler told the Detroit News some four years ago that he finds Mr. Ford to be an "inspiration" and wishes to implement the patriotic American capitalist ideals exemplified by Detroit's foremost car manufacturer in making his new 'volkswagen'. What better sign is there of the extent to which our mutual interests align?

That you have presented which of these emerging powers interests best align with those of the United States as a "choice" only shows the extent of the increasingly fantastic reporting to which the New York Times has become subject since moving to 1475 Broadway 30 years ago. Next you'll be trying to tell us that the Dodgers will leave Brooklyn for some second-rate Western city like Los Angeles.

Sincerely Yours,

Henry H. Morton IV
East Quogue, Long Island

While Herr Hitler does have some good ideas regarding the Jews, and is in many ways better than the Soviets, he is frankly insane. His obsession with Lebensraum leads me to fear that he will start another war, which we cannot afford. The Soviets at least don't seem like they will invade anyone, due to Stalin's focus on Socialism in one country. Stalin's policies may be objectionable, but at least he will not start another war.

Our British friends have Canada, Australia, and South Africa.

We Americans have the vast prairies of the fertile West.

Who are we to deny our German cousins a little elbow room in a land otherwise inhabited by inferior Slav races?

[Corenea]

While Herr Hitler does have some good ideas regarding the Jews, and is in many ways better than the Soviets, he is frankly insane. His obsession with Lebensraum leads me to fear that he will start another war, which we cannot afford. The Soviets at least don't seem like they will invade anyone, due to Stalin's focus on Socialism in one country. Stalin's policies may be objectionable, but at least he will not start another war.

Our British friends have Canada, Australia, and South Africa.

We Americans have the vast prairies of the fertile West.

Who are we to deny our German cousins a little elbow room in a land otherwise inhabited by inferior Slav races?

Who are we to go against our policy by having a friendly attitudes towards either one of them?

[God Kefka]

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?

I think on an ideological and realistic basis, as of the 1930, the USA is closer to Nazi Germany than the Soviet Union in terms of practice.

The Americans could recognize the Germans' racist oppression of the Jews if the Germans would in turn recognize the Americans' racist oppression of the blacks in the South. In the meantime, they both support a form of semi-protectionist capitalism. America has nothing in common with the Soviet Union...

It's a match made in heaven...

And if they ally together, there won't be a Cold War...

[European Socialist Republic]

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?

I think on an ideological and realistic basis, as of the 1930, the USA is closer to Nazi Germany than the Soviet Union in terms of practice.

The Americans could recognize the Germans' racist oppression of the Jews if the Germans would in turn recognize the Americans' racist oppression of the blacks in the South. In the meantime, they both support a form of semi-protectionist capitalism. America has nothing in common with the Soviet Union...

It's a match made in heaven...

And if they ally together, there won't be a Cold War...

What is this "cold war" you speak of? Is that when armies fight eachother with snowballs?

[Granadeseret]

I think on an ideological and realistic basis, as of the 1930, the USA is closer to Nazi Germany than the Soviet Union in terms of practice.

The Americans could recognize the Germans' racist oppression of the Jews if the Germans would in turn recognize the Americans' racist oppression of the blacks in the South. In the meantime, they both support a form of semi-protectionist capitalism. America has nothing in common with the Soviet Union...

It's a match made in heaven...

And if they ally together, there won't be a Cold War...

What is this "cold war" you speak of? Is that when armies fight eachother with snowballs?

What I am assuming, as we have had "Cold Wars" of a sort in the past (Right before WW I, for example, or the American Psudo-War against France), is if the Soviets win alone (which they will) then they will become so powerful that they will begin to spread Communism via proxy, and the mere threat of an invasion on either side (and the Colonalist beleifs of Western Europe bumping up against Soviet Anti-Colonialism) will result in indirect forms of fighting and arms buildups in an attempt to spread influnace... like Russia and Great Britian's "Great Game"

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Stalin, of course. He may be imperfect, but at least the Soviet Union stands for the worker. The Nazis stand for nothing but some scientifically unsupportable "Aryan" ideal.

[Corenea]

Stalin, of course. He may be imperfect, but at least the Soviet Union stands for the worker. The Nazis stand for nothing but some scientifically unsupportable "Aryan" ideal.

Why not side with neither? Side with only Great Britain, France, and maybe Poland?

[Nazis in Space]

How often does it have to be repeated that the Third Reich has a non-aggression pact with Poland, cordial relations with Britain, and is actively working on ending the animosity between France and Germany?

What the fuck are you people fantasising about?

Yours somewhat wearily,

Adolf Hitler, Chancellor & President of Germany

[Granadeseret]

Stalin, of course. He may be imperfect, but at least the Soviet Union stands for the worker. The Nazis stand for nothing but some scientifically unsupportable "Aryan" ideal.

Why not side with neither? Side with only Great Britain, France, and maybe Poland?

... and why should we side with the ungreatful little gits who at the end of last war completely ignored us at the peace hearings, denied us our right to trade with neutral powers by playing a classical blockade and ignoring all laws of blockade, defaulting on their multi-million dollar debt and still insist on keeping the grossly unfair and illogical terms of Versallies? Britian and France are fine, Poland is worth nothing and will only get us drawn into two wars, if anything (Germany and the Soviets both have claims to their lands, I beleive).

And why NOT side with one of them? More freinds the better, and if we can make Germany feel more included and important to the world community, instead of the punching bag France and Britian turned her into, then perhaps we can foster good feeling that will PREVENT them from turning West and keep our attention focused on resolving those parts of Versallies which were unjust and keeping Bolshevism contained.

Again, Germany is the victeam here, faced with injustice, merely tryin to get her economy back on track and allow ethnic Germans who wish to be part of Germany the ability to do so, and to shore up relations and respect in the international community. How is this evil?

[Camelza]

[1935]We should let the damn commies and them nazi wackos kill each other off.[/1935]

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Stalin, of course. He may be imperfect, but at least the Soviet Union stands for the worker. The Nazis stand for nothing but some scientifically unsupportable "Aryan" ideal.

Why not side with neither? Side with only Great Britain, France, and maybe Poland?

More exploiters of the proletariat? Don't get me wrong, they're better than the Nazis, and I'd certainly be on their side against Schickelgruber's dirty little minions, but their hands are hardly clean, especially in their colonies.

[Shaggai]

While Herr Hitler does have some good ideas regarding the Jews, and is in many ways better than the Soviets, he is frankly insane. His obsession with Lebensraum leads me to fear that he will start another war, which we cannot afford. The Soviets at least don't seem like they will invade anyone, due to Stalin's focus on Socialism in one country. Stalin's policies may be objectionable, but at least he will not start another war.

Our British friends have Canada, Australia, and South Africa.

We Americans have the vast prairies of the fertile West.

Who are we to deny our German cousins a little elbow room in a land otherwise inhabited by inferior Slav races?

The British and the French would never stand for it. Perhaps the Germans need more land, but right now is exactly the wrong time for them to expand. Once the tensions of the Great War wear off I would be willing to concede the point, but as it stands I am afraid I cannot support Herr Hitler.

[Corenea]

Why not side with neither? Side with only Great Britain, France, and maybe Poland?

More exploiters of the proletariat? Don't get me wrong, they're better than the Nazis, and I'd certainly be on their side against Schickelgruber's dirty little minions, but their hands are hardly clean, especially in their colonies.

Choosing between Nazis and the Soviet Union is like choosing to eat your shit or drink your piss. And why should we recognize these two un-American states? They hate each other so let them kill each other while everyone else just watch. If we ally with either one of them, they'll end up being our enemy, I'll bet you $500 for that.

[God Kefka]

I think on an ideological and realistic basis, as of the 1930, the USA is closer to Nazi Germany than the Soviet Union in terms of practice.

The Americans could recognize the Germans' racist oppression of the Jews if the Germans would in turn recognize the Americans' racist oppression of the blacks in the South. In the meantime, they both support a form of semi-protectionist capitalism. America has nothing in common with the Soviet Union...

It's a match made in heaven...

And if they ally together, there won't be a Cold War...

What is this "cold war" you speak of? Is that when armies fight eachother with snowballs?

It's when the USA spends half a decade on billions of dollars on proxy wars and nuclear arms buildup...

when all of that could have simply be avoided by siding with Nazi Germany in World War II. Sure the Nazis would have won and taken over Europe, but they would have destroyed the Soviet Union in the process. In the meantime, they can slowly stagnate and destroy themselves through civil war and revolutions. A few tens of millions of Germans can't control all of Europe and Russia indefinitely...

In the meantime, the USA would be free and unmatched as the undisputed leader of not just the free world... but the entire world.

[Corenea]

What is this "cold war" you speak of? Is that when armies fight eachother with snowballs?

It's when the USA spends half a decade on billions of dollars on proxy wars and nuclear arms buildup...

when all of that could have simply be avoided by siding with Nazi Germany in World War II. Sure the Nazis would have won and taken over Europe, but they would have destroyed the Soviet Union in the process. In the meantime, they can slowly stagnate and destroy themselves through civil war and revolutions. A few tens of millions of Germans can't control all of Europe and Russia indefinitely...

In the meantime, the USA would be free and unmatched as the undisputed leader of not just the free world... but the entire world.

What is this World War 2 you speak of? We already had a Great War and it's the war to end all war

[Yumyumsuppertime]

More exploiters of the proletariat? Don't get me wrong, they're better than the Nazis, and I'd certainly be on their side against Schickelgruber's dirty little minions, but their hands are hardly clean, especially in their colonies.

Choosing between Nazis and the Soviet Union is like choosing to eat your shit or drink your piss. And why should we recognize these two un-American states? They hate each other so let them kill each other while everyone else just watch. If we ally with either one of them, they'll end up being our enemy, I'll bet you $500 for that.

Because despite its growing pains, the U.S.S.R. is the single greatest defender of the proletariat in the world today, and I will not stand idly by while it is threatened. The Soviets are not the enemy of America itself, but rather of the ruthless capitalist predatory class, which survives off of the blood of the workers.