Alliance of Evil Historically Possible?

[Snowstorm]

Here's a thread for debate:

Would Stalin and Hitler have really formed an "Alliance of Evil" (I know you're dying to answer this one, Kuni ) ?

If so, how long would either have continued to do so if they did? They're are many possibilities, and I'd love to hear all of them...

[Fintilgin]

Personally, I don't think so. When I play the scenario I'm just going to pretend that Germany fell to communists in the early 30's instead of fascists, and the alliance of evil comes from that instead.

[SeaMonkey]

You know Fascism and Communism are not that far apart, both are socialistic concepts, the one big difference is instead of the government directly running all the corporations(the government is The Corporation), unions, business and banks(communism), the fascists allow the private businesses to operate(and make profit, but not too much) under the supervision of the government. Sound familiar?

[xwormwood]

Maybe.

But Germany would have to pay a price for this alliance.

Late 1940 / Early 1941 Stalin already demanded from Hitler Finland, Bulgaria, Romania and the Dardanellen (probably soon followed by the entire Turkey).

It Hitler would have agreed, well, maybe the alliance would have lived some more years, who could tell? Common enemies might bring you together.

Stalin and the Western Allies became "friends" as well as along as they had a common enemy (Germany), why shouldn't this have worked in any other direction as well?

[david12345]

No way. Mein Kampf explains Hitlers view of Russia

[SeaMonkey]

So...Hitler was deluded, he advocated purity of race also.....we see how far he carried that.

[Gypsy]

Had Norway and Sweden consented to allowing the Brits and French millitary access to move across theri nations to help defend Finlan against the USSR it's possible that the USSR would have declared war on the Allies. This would mean that Germany and the USSR had similar enemies.

Does this mean they wouldve worked in harmony together long? Well they amicably divided Poland amongst each other but I believe both of the just saw this as stalling for time to build up their military might.

The USSR was unpleased with Hitler when he made movements towards Romania because Stalin saw Romania as his conquest. The Nazis needed the Romania oil and had Stalin grasped it he couldve parched the German war machine.

Stalin had designs to conqueror Scandanavia sort of a USSR manifest destiny I suppose. But Hitler needed Scandanavian iron. Even a communist Finland was too close for comfort for Hitler.

On top of the resource squabbles there's the ideology. Yes both govs. were dictatorships but fascism and communism are ideologically opposed. The war in Spain with Nazi backed Franco forces was a proxy war against said ideologies.

Even if the USSR had declared war against the Allies angry at them lending the Finns a hand I believe the uneasy truce between the USSR and Nazi Germany wouldn'tve lasted long. The reality is it wouldve aided Hitler the most. Imagine an uneasy Nazi/USSR alliance vs. The Allies: the soviet forces wouldve been concentrated in Finland and Hitler could then surprise attack the Soviets having lulled them into a false sense of security.

The reality is I believe that Stalin and Hitler were both to paranoid of each others conquesting desires in order to ever trust each other. Eventually war was unavoidable, their could only be one evil dictator on the block.

[xwormwood]

At the end of the war Hitler WOULD have made an alliance with the russians, thats for sure. Rather with the russians than with the western allies.

Hitler himself stated severall times that if he would have known how strong the russians already were in 1941 he wouldn't have attacked them.

Guderian, Canaris, Gehlen, they all warned him, but he called it the greatest bluff since Genghis Khan.

So, imagine Hitler dares to visist Moscow, dares to trust his General Staff, everything MIGHT have happened different.

[CSS]

When Hitler did the Non-Aggression pact with Staling in1939 it shook the world, When germany invaded and was conquering France and the low countries England offered instant Merger of France and England. Yes All French citizens would be English and all English citizens would be French ONE country fighting the Axis till Final victory......the Vichy goverment declined.

In Decemer of 1940 Molotov actaully tried per Stalin to become a FULL and Forth partner of the Axis powers. Hitler at his Zenith declined, up till past the battle of Kursk Stalin was ready to make a separate peace.

So let us think not, the possiblities WERE definately there not mere wistful conjecture.

[Robby1]

I generally don't like alternate scenarios that are far fetched. But the neat thing about the Alliance of Evil is that it does not require you to believe in something highly unlikely. Germany and the USSR already did the highly unlikely thing when they entered into their pact in 1939 and then adhered to it for 2 years. All you have to do is imagine that they continued the existing arrangement. Like any cartel, they would come the realization that they are better off cooperating and dividing the spoils rather than attacking each other.

[Emperor Elliott]

ya it works out to be a very interesting campaign

[SeaMonkey]

It might need to be a little more than intermediate and +1 to the Allies if your playing as USSR / Germany, maybe 1.5 to 2 on the experience level.

[Emperor Elliott]

ya but then they get so many bonus units

[SeaMonkey]

Yeah you're right EE, maybe the initial level with +2 experience to the AI is the way to go, cuts down on the unit density and promotes more strategy instead of just a big unit rush.

[Emperor Elliott]

Ya in 1941 germany and japan had 66 ground units each

[KvP]

Nice dabate! Nice idea, Snowstorm, opening this thread!

@ SeaMonkey

The Soviet government never controlled the banks! The Communist Manifesto says that private banking is still desirable. I never read it, but heard about that. The big banks are multinational cooperations led by a few families. How can a government of a nation control a multinational cooperation? That's impossible and also desirable! They established branches in nearly every country of the world (except North Korea and Iran). The branches often have different names, but belong to the same families. That's why they are able to control international capital streams. They lend the nations money in return for interest and urge the nations into the debt trap. Think of your country please (and all other readers either) of how excessive the government debt is. That's no coincidence! That's how capitalism works, gaining influence by excessive government debts. This works for thousands of years since the invention of money.

The Soviet Union (and I don't mean Russia!!!) was nothing but a 20th century construction of incredible rich people that you will never find on a "Forbes-list" 'cause they are atop of it.

Back to the thread, The Soviets and Nazi-Germany never would have built an alliance. This has to do with Shamballah contra Agartha (Agarthi) - ever heard about that? No, I knew it! With the Soviet Union and the Allies on Agartha's side and the Third Reich (and his minors) on Shamballah's side a cooperation could never ever have happened.

Mankind will never be delivered from pain (war, starvation, misery, debt trap...) until the two become one again.

--- --- ---

Shine on forever.

Shine on benevolent son.

Shine down upon the broken.

Shine until the two become one.

Shine on forever.

Shine on benevolent son.

Shine on upon the severed.

Shine until the two become one.

Divided I'm withering away.

Divide and I'm withering away.

Shine on upon the many,

light our way

Benevolent son.

-- Tool, "Jambi"

--- --- ---

"Alliance of Evil" --> who is evil and who is not? Who is the one to decide that? I would never speak of any "evil", it's all just misconception, misconstruction. This is what I learned by studying secret societies and esoterism. Studying this subjects is a lifetime progress and I will continue 'til the end of my life... :cool:

[SeaMonkey]

Interesting, I guess the invasion and disemination of Poland was a misconceived coalition, cooperating, league of occupation between two powers that would never conduct themselves in that manner?:confused:

Oops...my misconstruction of evil...sorry.

So what do these "families" exchange as wealth is transfered and who has control of that medium of exchange? And is it really debt if its built upon a substanceless, misconstrued medium.

Isn't it really all about faith or the definition of how its perceived.

[acrashb]

With the Soviet Union and the Allies on Agartha's side and the Third Reich (and his minors) on Shamballah's side a cooperation could never ever have happened.

Mankind will never be delivered from pain (war, starvation, misery, debt trap...) until the two become one again.

[...]Studying this subjects is a lifetime progress and I will continue 'til the end of my life... :cool:

This sounded nutty, so I used the awesome power of google and confirmed the sound:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agartha

[KvP]

@ SeaMonkey, I don't meant you with the "misconstruction of evil", I just meant it in general, sorry the misunderstanding.

WW2 was not a historical accident, many contracts made after WW1 have been broken or just ignored, by both sides the Allies and the 3rd Reich. And think of the financial side of a war. How could Hitler have build a large army in such a short period of time?! It cost the hell a lot of money, and who lend the money? BANKS!!! The 3rd Reich was highly indepted! And not how the "official" history books say, that the Germans accumulated the capital with their manpower and workforce, respectively. That's not true or call it a lie, because that would never have been possible within a few years.

Last year a brand-new documentation was released in Germany. It explains the breaking and ignoring of the contracts and how the nations embroiled theirselves more and more to war. The docu is called: "Hitlers Krieg? Was Guido Knopp verschweigt" It's downloadable at "dokujunkies.org" (rapidshare download = one-click-hoster). I don't know if this documentation is available in english language too anywhere in the www, that would be nice. The "official" history keeps many information a secret, nice to have a docu that "lifts the secrets out of the dark into the light".

The winner, the victor writes history!!! That's how it is! For some years now the establishment takes root (establishes) a new term or concept that is called "political correctness". Anyone ever thought about that?! And I always thought politicians are and politics is correct, what conditions need to emphasize this "political correctness" on and on in the media? It's the internet, I think! More and more people refer information out of the www (blogs, communities...) and the time of holding information back comes to an end now, I guess. Think of the anglo-american-archives that lock up many facts for 50 years or more. Many of these archives are open now but you hear nothing about that in the media. What kind of so called "democracy" is this we're living in when lots of infos are locked?! How shall democracies work when the peoples are badly informed?!

I agree when you point out that it's all about faith or the definition of how it's perceived. Nowadays three perspectives exist in my mind. The first is the normal tv (it's a monster, I can tell you!), newspaper and magazine perspective, the most people view, no background information. The second came with reading good researched books about secret societies, brotherhoods and intelligence services and the information they restrain. That made me seeing lots of circumstances from another "angle of view", that "normal" people do not understand. And the last view is the one that came with esoterism. I asked myself more and more questions but I was unable to answer these. Esoterism answered many questions and gave me a more "relatively" perspective, some kind of "all things are relative", it depends on the angle of view. Depending on the people surrounding me, I switch through these angles. I have had lots of interesting conversations the last years. And I can tell you, more and more people wake up and don't trust tv anymore!

[KvP]

@ acrashb

When I think of wikipedia and esoterism I'm getting nuts! It's quite nutty, you're right. Wikipedia isn't much good about esoterism-terms.

Quotation: "The myth of "Agartha" is also known as "Shambhala"" ---> what kind of bullsh** is this?! These are two different things!

Quotation: "...the idea of Shambhala is said to have an "outer," "inner," and "secret" meaning." ---> Yes, different meanings exist!

Quotation: "The inner and secret meanings refer to more subtle understandings of what Shambhala represents..." ---> This comes near to what I meant. But not only Shamballah, Agartha either! But wikipedia does not explain! Holding back information, as it's always is!

The german wikipedia is a little different and does make no mention of the term "Shamballah". No backgroung info either.

[Snowstorm]

I think I can put this business of control in a nutshell:

The banking elite control the governments, not the other way around.

Our current government in position here in the good ole USA is a perfect case in point, I'm sorry to say. Yes, many decisions are made by our governments that have ulterior motives that have very little to do with the ones offered publicly by them.

[acrashb]

When I think of wikipedia and esoterism I'm getting nuts.

More like long-gone. The bottom line, source notwithstanding, is that any thought of inner-earth cities is so cracked as to be beyond the pale. I suggest psychotropic medications. Not that you'll be convinced; I only respond for the occasional young-and-gullible reader that needs to hear an opposing view.

Alliance of evil possible? No. While fascism and communism share many common characteristics (and are, as has been pointed out, both just forms of socialism), the differences are profound and would prevent a long-term alliance. Remember that NAZI party thugs were in pitched street battles with the German communist party thugs, also that the parties were head-to-head in parliament (or whatever it was called), until Hitler gained the chancellery and started to consolidate power.

[harry33]

"communism share many common..."

that's crap.

fascism and imperialism are a facses of the capitalistic/bourgeois system.A lot of communist/socialists aso died in concentration camps (like ernst thälmann) etc. .The communist ideology is far away from the fascism ideology!

The Nazis and italian fascists retain banks and industry companies (and much of them did a lotsa money like e.g. "Krupp, Siemens , Daimler, Volks Wagen" and so on...

But in the sowjet union was all companies in absolute ownership of proletarians...

(by the way the UDSSR was socialistic and not communistic!)

[acrashb]

that's crap.

Nope. NAZI == Nationalsozialist - notice the "socialist" part. Both fascists and communists exalt the group over the individual, which is the core commonality.

The primary difference is that communism creates a struggle across class lines, fascism across nationalist lines.

The commonalities are poorly understood because of the current right/left paradigm, which I think is broken and should be replaced in any event - partly because it fails to well-define these two major examples of political theory.

If you're interested in following up, you might check out a copy of "Ominous Parallels", by Peikoff. The first half is a cogent analysis of the social and philosophical currents in Germany and the Nazi party leading up to WWII. The second half fails, in my view, to draw a parallel to the modern US - but the first half is a remarkable piece of research and insight, well worth the reading.

A lot of communist/socialists aso died in concentration camps

That's correct, and it's interesting to note that most died in their own camps. Those that died in the fascist camps were there because, as mentioned before in the context of Nazi and communist parties struggling for power in pre-war Germany, they were enemies of the state.

The Nazis and italian fascists retain banks and industry companies

Which retained only the independence that was deemed to serve the "volks". Check out the history of Volkswagen - pursued by Porsche entirely because the Nazi party thought it would serve the people (and also because worker's layaway coupons for future delivery of the cars was used as a slush fund by the Nazis). The USSR mostly nationalized, but the differences in practice were minimal - do what the state says, or else. That's not private ownership, its "private slavery". The elite - in fascist or communist states - did very well, but not because they controlled private property. Fascism has nothing to do with capitalism, which can be summed up as the willing exchange of value for value.

Oh hell, now I'm "arguing on the internet"

[SeaMonkey]

Thank you acrashb, I just don't have the energy to argue your astute points, well said. Your post mostly reflects my mindset of what these regimes underlying ideology was all about, simply put, they are about the collective good(as the politico defines it and is exempt from) and not the individual's pursuit of happiness and enhancement.