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

[Ashmoria]

This is a false dilemma. All evidence we have points towards the Nazis and Soviets barely restraining a mutual hatred for one another. America need not involve itself in the affairs of Europe at this juncture, especially not to such a level where we begin to provide any kind of support, moral or physical, to either of these dictatorial regimes. Give them time and both Germany and the USSR shall be at each others throats and decimate each other. Hitler obviously bears no good will towards the Bolsheviks, even if he does pin the movement on domestic Jews for the moment for some inexplicable reason. If conflict arises it will undoubtedly be between Hitler and Stalin, we need not concern ourselves with the as-yet-to-be petty wars of European dictators.

Actually... such a war would be in our vital interests, even if we don't have particularly strong ties to either nation at the moment. Both appear... at least rhetorically, in the case of the Germans, highly militaristic, and if relations are as strained as you say, I highly doubt a war between them would result in anything other then complete annihilation of the other (at least politically; puppets may or may not be involved) which would leave that party in control of a sphere stretching from Central Europe all the way to Asia, which would have some... troubling affects on the balance of power, and the security of both or trade and our psudeo-allied in London and Paris (and who knows what Poland, a country disliked by both its neighbors, would end up as?) To be on that power's good side, and strike down the greater evil, would generate good will and dependence which will allow us to sustain a balance of power that will avoid this exploding into another Great War... which nobody would wish to fight.

whoa, what the hell kind of nut are you? have you forgotten the number of men lost to a useless war in Europe less than 20 years ago? why in the world would we want to do THAT again? im not sending more of America's sons to die in trenches for Europeans who cant learn their own lessons about war.

[Libertarian California]

We ought to instigate a war between the two, and then we take out whoever is still standing.

[Nazis in Space]

My dear friends on the other side of the Atlantic. Friends who are majorly descended of the proud Aryan race, of pure white heritage. Friends who, just like we do here in Germany, care for the racial purity of their descendants, and ensure that the lesser races are kept separate.

I know, I've written a book that states things you might find objectionable. That's understandable - France voiced similar concerns in the past, and I've tried my best to answer its questions and worries in my now-famous interview with Comte de Brinon in the Matin. Yes, in Mein Kampf, I state goals that amount to war. But Mein Kampf was also written while I was in prison. It isn't a manifesto - it's an accusation of a man held back by an unsustainable system. It's a scream of anger, not a program.

Observe what I've done since becoming chancellor - have I declared war? No! I've been supporting French-German reconcilliation. I reference my vice, Rudolf Hess, stating the solidarity of all veterans of the great war, across borders, across nations, in his speech in Königsberg last year. Our financing of conferences of veterans of the great war, with the openly stated goal of influencing the press in both our countries to create a less poisonous, more amicable climate - to the ultimate benefit of both our great nations.

In november of last year, I've had the honour to personally greet a delegation of French veterans organised in the Union Nationale des Anciens Combattants, led by my dear friend Jean Goy, in Berlin.

Are these the actions of a man aiming for war?

Is the German-Polish non-aggression pact the act of a man aiming for war?

Yes! I want Germany to be free again. Free to make its own decisions, whether economic, militarily, or political or nature.

But I do not want war.

One great European war, almost shattering our white civilisation and killing countless millions is enough. Is already one too many.

Europe can only succeed, the civilisation of the white man can only last, through reconcilliation.

Meanwhile, what has the Soviet Union done? Where are its signals of peace, of reconcilliation, of ceasing its aggression via the doctrine of bolshevic revolution?

America... Do not listen to those who'd rather you sacrifice your freedoms, who'd rather let the red hordes march over the times square. Those who'd rather watch the old world drown under the red flood than to see a lasting peace. We aren't so different, after all, America.

Yours sincerely,

Adolf Hitler

[Granadeseret]

Actually... such a war would be in our vital interests, even if we don't have particularly strong ties to either nation at the moment. Both appear... at least rhetorically, in the case of the Germans, highly militaristic, and if relations are as strained as you say, I highly doubt a war between them would result in anything other then complete annihilation of the other (at least politically; puppets may or may not be involved) which would leave that party in control of a sphere stretching from Central Europe all the way to Asia, which would have some... troubling affects on the balance of power, and the security of both or trade and our psudeo-allied in London and Paris (and who knows what Poland, a country disliked by both its neighbors, would end up as?) To be on that power's good side, and strike down the greater evil, would generate good will and dependence which will allow us to sustain a balance of power that will avoid this exploding into another Great War... which nobody would wish to fight.

whoa, what the hell kind of nut are you? have you forgotten the number of men lost to a useless war in Europe less than 20 years ago? why in the world would we want to do THAT again? im not sending more of America's sons to die in trenches for Europeans who cant learn their own lessons about war.

This is a matter of foreign policy, not direct military action. Establishing positive political and economic relations with either Germany or The Soviet Union will not lead into another Great War, unless that matter is taken out of our hands to such levels that no sovereign nation could stand for. (Say, the Soviets invaded Alaska; would you twiddle your thumbs and allow them free reign?) Ultimately, there is more likely to be war should we do nothing, such is the culture of Europe and the massive ideological rift between the Bolsheviks and the rest of the civilized word. If peace is to be preserved, preventive action must first be taken. As our brother in Germany stated, shall we wait until the Reds are marching all across the Old World to strike, or shall we form a firm front against them now and, by showing we shall broke no insult and no expansion, head off a major war? The question should not be if we are to defend ourselves after the first strike, or the twelfth. If must be are we willing to defend against the radical calls for world revolution, or shall we kneel back like weakling and accept it now?

American Freedom, as we have learned from the Great Depression and the Federal actions necessary to blunt and heal from it, is more then merely being left alone. Peace to is something that can not be possessed merely by not instigating war. The threat of military action against aggressors must always stand... elsewise, why would they not attacK? To that end, why should we not support the Germans, who stand up to the Bolsheviks when no others dare to do so?

[Ashmoria]

whoa, what the hell kind of nut are you? have you forgotten the number of men lost to a useless war in Europe less than 20 years ago? why in the world would we want to do THAT again? im not sending more of America's sons to die in trenches for Europeans who cant learn their own lessons about war.

This is a matter of foreign policy, not direct military action. Establishing positive political and economic relations with either Germany or The Soviet Union will not lead into another Great War, unless that matter is taken out of our hands to such levels that no sovereign nation could stand for. (Say, the Soviets invaded Alaska; would you twiddle your thumbs and allow them free reign?) Ultimately, there is more likely to be war should we do nothing, such is the culture of Europe and the massive ideological rift between the Bolsheviks and the rest of the civilized word. If peace is to be preserved, preventive action must first be taken. As our brother in Germany stated, shall we wait until the Reds are marching all across the Old World to strike, or shall we form a firm front against them now and, by showing we shall broke no insult and no expansion, head off a major war? The question should not be if we are to defend ourselves after the first strike, or the twelfth. If must be are we willing to defend against the radical calls for world revolution, or shall we kneel back like weakling and accept it now?

American Freedom, as we have learned from the Great Depression and the Federal actions necessary to blunt and heal from it, is more then merely being left alone. Peace to is something that can not be possessed merely by not instigating war. The threat of military action against aggressors must always stand... elsewise, why would they not attacK? To that end, why should we not support the Germans, who stand up to the Bolsheviks when no others dare to do so?

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.

[Shrillland]

A difficult question to say the least. Germany is certainly back on her feet after the rise of the Nazis, but the recent purge of his stormtroopers is very worrisome to say the least. The Soviets suffer from the same problem, but in a way they are worse because they dictate to communist movements throughout the world without any opposition or commonsense coming from them, I mean have you read any of Louis Thorez's speeches in France? They look like they were copied word-for-word from Moscow's communist propaganda. At the moment I am actually more inclined towards supporting Italy.

[Granadeseret]

This is a matter of foreign policy, not direct military action. Establishing positive political and economic relations with either Germany or The Soviet Union will not lead into another Great War, unless that matter is taken out of our hands to such levels that no sovereign nation could stand for. (Say, the Soviets invaded Alaska; would you twiddle your thumbs and allow them free reign?) Ultimately, there is more likely to be war should we do nothing, such is the culture of Europe and the massive ideological rift between the Bolsheviks and the rest of the civilized word. If peace is to be preserved, preventive action must first be taken. As our brother in Germany stated, shall we wait until the Reds are marching all across the Old World to strike, or shall we form a firm front against them now and, by showing we shall broke no insult and no expansion, head off a major war? The question should not be if we are to defend ourselves after the first strike, or the twelfth. If must be are we willing to defend against the radical calls for world revolution, or shall we kneel back like weakling and accept it now?

American Freedom, as we have learned from the Great Depression and the Federal actions necessary to blunt and heal from it, is more then merely being left alone. Peace to is something that can not be possessed merely by not instigating war. The threat of military action against aggressors must always stand... elsewise, why would they not attacK? To that end, why should we not support the Germans, who stand up to the Bolsheviks when no others dare to do so?

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.

[Stovokor]

A difficult question to say the least. Germany is certainly back on her feet after the rise of the Nazis, but the recent purge of his stormtroopers is very worrisome to say the least. The Soviets suffer from the same problem, but in a way they are worse because they dictate to communist movements throughout the world without any opposition or commonsense coming from them, I mean have you read any of Louis Thorez's speeches in France? They look like they were copied word-for-word from Moscow's communist propaganda. At the moment I am actually more inclined towards supporting Italy.

It's like you can almost see into the future.
On this note, I think we should support Germany in it's aims. We could profit from it's growth and more importantly we're more aligned to them on an ideological level than that of the Reds. Since we're in such a troubling economic situation right now my vote is with the the nation with an economy we can support.

[Maineiacs]

Neither. What did getting involved in the Great War get us? Thousands of dead, the influenza, and Wilson's ridiculous Leagus of Nations idea. Let them fight each other. It's none of our business. It's not like we could be attacked over here on the other side of the world. Who has that kind of range? No one.

[Ozzy]

If this was set just three years earlier, then I would say Germany.

[Coexisting Republics]

Mr. Roosevelt's programs are unsustainable, and I daresay that this American economy will only get back to normal employment if and when another war breaks out. Even if we remain non-interventionist, the funds from selling weapons to Britain and France would help the American economy immensely.
Back on topic, I would suggest a cautious alliance with the Soviets. Though Communism itself is a flawed political ideology, and the imperfect application of it by Mr. Lenin and Mr. Stalin have made it even worse, Hitler, oddly, is the more dangerous entity here. I suspect that his country is undergoing massive militarization, and that before the decade closes, he will have opened another Great War. Were Lenin and his Intercom policies still king in Russia, I would not support such an alliance, but Stalin's policy of "Socialism in 1 country" assures me that he would not attack the US and risk a war with its allies unless we were the aggressor. However, Germany has irreconcilable differences with Britain, our chief ally, and I am not prepared to turn on them (Or risk war with the rest of the Empire/Commonwealth). Also, Hitler's anti-Semitic policies have worried me- is he more extreme than we think? Today he bans Jews from voting and segregates them (startlingly like our own disgusting practice of black/white segregation of the south, which must be eliminated)- tomorrow, he could be sending them to forced labor or exterminating them. Finally, Communism itself is unstable, and if Stalin's policies continue, I say that within 20-30 years, the USSR will fall- and even deStalinization will only extend its lifetime another 25 years beyond that. Nazi economics, though generating mass inequality on the scale of our economy 100 years ago, are perfectly stable, so an alliance with them is more dangerous, as they can always be the leading ally. Also, the Soviets do not hate 1 particular race, so justifying our alliance to that race is easier.

[Densaner]

Roosevelt should be impeached for recognising the Soviet Union. I say we side with that Hitler fella. Those damn Commies are no good.

[Mkuki]

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 say we should help the British and French and watch out for the Japanese.

[Empire of Narnia]

Side with the great hero Joseph Stalin and remember to vote Communist in the next election!

[Granadeseret]

Side with the great hero Joseph Stalin and remember to vote Communist in the next election!

To all the government officials present at this meeting, this one should be investigated for subversive activity post-haste. We've already run the risk of playing too closly to the Communists once before... and next time, the conspirators probably won't be so stupid as to pick Smedley Butler as their proposed leader. Fascism might work well and good for Germany and Italy, but we do not need to subvert the electoral process where said process is doing just fine in satisfying the needs of the nation.

[Katyuscha]

Time to take this shit further and just start doing mythilogical debates.

[Northern European Senates]

are you serious the soviets can't be trusted so what if they have signed half a million treaties there a communism for Christs sake all they care about is equality which is taken advantage of and becomes corrupt I don't believe they should be in the WA.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

I support...Stalin. At least he doesn't mock us for our demographics...right?

[Darwinish Brentsylvania]

Eh, you both invaded one of my homelands, Poland. But....Soviets, although I don't support both at all.

[Shaggai]

Soviets. That Stalin guy is pretty bad, but if you read Mein Kampf you'll see that Hitler is literally insane. I know most people don't believe he'll do that much bad stuff, but how many of them have read his book? Hitler will probably start invading smaller neighboring countries for "Lebensraum" and start another war. I've had enough of those for one lifetime.

[United Marxist Nations]

We must try to delay any war for as long as it is possible to do so. The world is in no economic position to support such an endeavor. That said, Mr. Hitler is a worrying fellow, considering his racial stance.

[Katyuscha]

Soviets. That Stalin guy is pretty bad, but if you read Mein Kampf you'll see that Hitler is literally insane. I know most people don't believe he'll do that much bad stuff, but how many of them have read his book? Hitler will probably start invading smaller neighboring countries for "Lebensraum" and start another war. I've had enough of those for one lifetime.

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

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

[ImperialistSalvia]

Let them kill each other, then swoop in and clear out the leftovers.

[ImperialistSalvia]

Side with the great hero Joseph Stalin and remember to vote Communist in the next election!

Never trust a Pinko.

[Geilinor]

Soviets. That Stalin guy is pretty bad, but if you read Mein Kampf you'll see that Hitler is literally insane. I know most people don't believe he'll do that much bad stuff, but how many of them have read his book? Hitler will probably start invading smaller neighboring countries for "Lebensraum" and start another war. I've had enough of those for one lifetime.

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.