No Greater Ally, a book review

[Campy]

I hope you realize I was being facetious. However, some of the support for Hitler did come from his anti-communist statements. His Non-aggression pact with Stalin blunted at least some of the public support.

Of course we never seem to add the fallout of the postwar collapse of the colonial empires to the cost of the war. India/Pakistan, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, etc. Still paying the bill for many of these.

Frank

[Ed Rotondaro]

I hope you realize I was being facetious. However, some of the support for Hitler did come from his anti-communist statements. His Non-aggression pact with Stalin blunted at least some of the public support.

Of course we never seem to add the fallout of the postwar collapse of the colonial empires to the cost of the war. India/Pakistan, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, etc. Still paying the bill for many of these.

Frank

Campy, Dennis, Mike et al:

The expression "Politics makes for strange bedfellows" was as true in the inter war period as it was in Renaissance Italy and the current day. An enemy can become at least a trading partner if not a temporary ally if circumstances allow. All conflict is economically based and with large multi-national corporations, anything can happen. Remember the golden rule: However has the gold makes the rules. And also history is written by the victors.

[ksbearski]

Hi Barry:

As to the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact, it was signed on January 26th, 1934. So much for Polish diplomacy.

Which kind of illustrates the Polish dilemma. Deal with the devil and get screwed or don't deal with the devil and still get screwed.

[old_pop2000]

Which kind of illustrates the Polish dilemma. Deal with the devil and get screwed or don't deal with the devil and still get screwed.

Hi Barry:
I am not certain what the Poles were trying to accomplish by dealing with the Germans behind the French backs. I guess they were covering all bases.

[ksbearski]

Yes, I think that's what they were trying to do,grasping at any straw. As you pointed out, maybe another thing they could have tried was allying with several other European countries, but you know, once Hitler figured out that France and Britain really weren't ready to stand up to him...or just wouldn't, all of Europe wasn't safe, alliances or no alliances.

[old_pop2000]

Yes, I think that's what they were trying to do,grasping at any straw. As you pointed out, maybe another thing they could have tried was allying with several other European countries, but you know, once Hitler figured out that France and Britain really weren't ready to stand up to him...or just wouldn't, all of Europe wasn't safe, alliances or no alliances.

I don't believe that Hitler knew for certain, the Allies were not going to initiate combat operations. I believe his intelligence was adequate enough to gauge how far along their mobilization efforts had progressed. However, there was still enough French forces on alert, to move into German held territory. We know that they actually did, and the results.

I do believe that an eastern European alliance of nations, with Stalin included might have changed the Hitler's mind. Stalin could have used that alliance as a buffer against German attack. Poor grand strategy on the part of the Soviets and the eastern Europeans.

[ksbearski]

Yes, I agree with you to an extent. But it seems to me that the Germans and Soviets worked closely immediately after WW1 to get around the terms of the Armistice, didn't they? I mean, didn't the Russians allow Germans to conduct armored warfare maneuvers in the Sov Union, as well as allow Luftwaffe training to be conducted there as well, through the 20's, up until the Spanish Civil War? Also, weren't many of the Soviet generals that were purged had trained and worked with the Germans?

[old_pop2000]

Yes, I agree with you to an extent. But it seems to me that the Germans and Soviets worked closely immediately after WW1 to get around the terms of the Armistice, didn't they? I mean, didn't the Russians allow Germans to conduct armored warfare maneuvers in the Sov Union, as well as allow Luftwaffe training to be conducted there as well, through the 20's, up until the Spanish Civil War? Also, weren't many of the Soviet generals that were purged had trained and worked with the Germans?

There was a German-Soviet rapproachement established after Hitler became chancelllor in 1933. Ostensibly this was pursued to cover Germany's back while it rearmed and to circumvent the Versaille treaty limitations. It was also helpful to the Soviets who were struggling with one of their frequent five year plans. It was a marriage of convenients for both.

Many books on this period of diplomacy use the term "collapse of the European system of diplomacy". I suspect this was a referral not only to the diplomacy but to the economic system. The collapse of the monarchies, resembling the post-napoleonic period with Metternich and the Congress of Vienna left a decided political hole. New democracies under economic pressure from the expanding industrial revolution were challenged by communism, fascism and other systems of government that seem to be better at managing the workings of government. The failure in 1914 of alliances to stop the great war probably was still fresh in government and diplomatic minds. I suspect this is why we did not see more alliances between the eastern European countries. Probably distrust of the western Europeans whom they feel created the mess in 1914. So, why not play both sides and hedge your bets.

I believe that the failure of the western governments to deal with the aftermath of the Great War both politically and economically, as we did after WWII was a contributing cause to what occurred in the pre-war period.