What's Happened to Russia in Ukraine Is What Would Have Happened to Nazi Germany in 1938-39 Had the Allies Let Czechoslovakia Defend Itself

@Burnley123 He said it himself

@Burnley123
Pretty much as there was that Hitler wanted to take over the rest of Europe in 1938. And that he could.

@Elessar source?

@Burnley123
History.

But I'd advise you to stay away from Trump University study at home courses.

@beckyromero no evidence then.

In a conventional war, Russia would be far weaker than the combined armies of NATO Europe..they've struggled to beat Ukraine.

It's such an intellectually lazy argument to compare every single despot to Hitler and every single conflict to WW2.

@Burnley123
I haven't compared any other single conflict to World War II.

Don't put words in my mouth just because others may have said that about past conflicts between 1945-2014.

@beckyromero Every world leader you don't like i Hitler. Every person who disagrees with you is like Trump.

Meh

@Burnley123
And why have they "struggled" to defeat Ukraine?

Because NATO has sent vast amounts of military aid to Ukraine, helped with training and no doubt has provided strategic intelligence.

And thanks to that conflict, Russia WILL be far weaker than the combined armies of NATO Europe should Putin continue on his international adventures. Just as Germany would have been far weaker than the combined armies of the Allies should it have continued invading others after subduing Czechoslovakia after a contested invasion.

NATO countries took in around 6 million refugees after Russia's invasion, many of whom have returned home.

How many more do you think will flee a Russian occupation of the whole country?

We MUST stop Putin NOW. Just as the Allies should have stood up to the Nazis in 1938.

@beckyromero Hmm... I get the vibe that you are a hawk. Have you really never compared anyone else to Hitler? Perhaps.

Telling me I've been to Trump to diversity is sick a purile cheap shot..It's a well known factory for British socialists. 😜

[@Burnley123
Look it as a "word to the wise."

As for Hitler, my comparison of Trump have been to that of someone else, as you no doubt are aware. But, in case you need a reminding: 😉

@beckyromero I'm not debating the history with you..I know it well enough.

What I don't buy is the Hitler equals Putin analogy.

Now, given the history of Russian geopolitics, it's possible that Russia may eventually have designs on other ex societ nations..whether they are or have the capacity are both debatable.

western Europe?

It's not a realistic goal militarily and I he risks to Russia would be enormous. I don't see it and you haven't provided a single reason why.

Germany in 1939 had the world's best military and cutting edge tech. The Russians have a lot of men and yanks bur it's mostly retrofitted soviet era stuff.They couldn't invade or take Germany without beating the entirety of.the continent.

This is just silly.

@Burnley123 https://thewest.com.au/news/conflict/ukraine-crisis-fears-rise-that-russia-may-invade-moldova-after-secret-map-shows-battle-plan--c-5897332

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-medvedev-floats-idea-pushing-back-polands-borders-2023-02-24/

https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/05/21/the-moscow-times-russia-unilaterally-decides-to-redraw-maritime-borders-with-lithuania-and-finland-in-the-baltic-sea/

@Burnley123 It's not realistic right now , which doesn't say anything about the situation we'll have in a few years, especially if their hybrid war succeeds in taking out key members from the alliance, even without a formal withdrawal (a plant, in particular Trump if he wins, would just have to refuse sending anything meaningful in response to art 5 being invoked over the invasion of any of the smaller eastern countries, and the whole alliance would crumble). Seeding division, convincing western Europe and Americans that "it's not worth it risking WW3 over some smaller eastern countries" is how they'll make territorial gains. By the time we'll say "enough" we'll have repeated the same damning WW2 mistake, and by then their military production and presence on the ground will have reached the point where they're no longer as "weak" as they're perceived now. Especially if China/others decides to get themselves more involved, and begin cooperating with them (in exchange for Russia cooperation in Taiwan or whichever eastern front they'll open)

@Burnley123

Geez Louise! Come on, Burnley. Look at a map!

Russia does not need to conquer or even set one foot onto German soil in order to invade and occupy Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania.

Nor to invade and occupy Poland, Modolva and Romania.

Putin has given speeches about wanting to reconstitute the old Soviet borders.

Just as Hitler gave speeches about Germany needing Lebensraum.

Whether or not WE think Russia is capable of invading NATO territory does not matter. What matters is whether THEY think they can (the Soviets thought they could conquer and hold Afghanistan, didn't they; Putin thought he could take Kyiv, didn't he?). History is littered with the shattered dreams of would-be conquerers.

And Germany did NOT have the world's best military nor cutting edge tech in 1938 (read the title of my post).

They DID have an quickly growing Luftwaffe. But in the fall of 1938 there were only about 500 Bf 109s operational and with inexperienced pilots. As far as heavy bombers were concerned, neither the Do 17 or the He 111 had the capability or load-carrying capacity to be anywhere near effective.

While the Germany Heer did have excellent leadership among their generals, what was at their command was an entirely different story.

I'd be happy to tell you the scarce amount of armored and other army divisions that Germany had at its disposal BEFORE the Munich Conference vis-a-vis the Allies. I did a post about that quite as while back.

In the fall of 1938, the German army had 48 active divisions: only three of which were panzer, four mechanized infantry, thirty-four infanrty, four light-motorized and three mountain divisions. That includes what Germany gained from the Austrians.

There was no ready-reserve

French tanks and even Czech tanks were superior to what the Germans had.

The Kriegsmarine was in even far worse shape than the Heer (army).

Battleships? (none completed, unless you want to count three pre-Dreadnought battleships built a decade before World War ONE) LOL! Aircraft carriers? LOL! (none completed) Heavy Cruisiers? (none completed)

How does NOT having something become superior to somethng someone else indeed has? Hey, can that trick be done with money? Then we can ALL be rich!

And you can count on your toes (7) the number of operational U-boats the Nazis had for service in the Atlantic.

But don't take my word for it. Read what German generals thought of the situation.

General Gunther Kluge said the army was completely unprepared for war. General Ewald von Kleist remarked that had the Czech crisis led to war, the only alternative to catastophe wold have been to arrest the political leadership.

In Belgrade, the German military attache told his British colleague that had a war started in Czechoslovakia it "might have dragged on for years."

Capturing the Skoda Words, Czech tanks, aircraft and airfields intact was a huge strategic victory and DIRECTLY led to the quick fall of Poland in 1939. The western Allies appeasement of Hitler at Munich may have even led to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Even Putin himself has said so in his usual, twisted logic that ends with delusionally somehow blaming POLAND for World War II.

But the western Allies lacked any backbone.

France, with any even moderately agressive military leadership could have gone into the Rhineland.

General Maurice Gamelin said in September that France could mobilize 5,500,000 men in one hundred divisions, sixty of which could face Germany (with only four of those needed to support the Maginot Line). Gamelin estimated that while Germany could mobilize up to sixty-six divisions within the first few weeks of the war, thirty-four of them would be tied down in Czechoslovakia, with only eight available on the western front. The Poles had indicated their military intervention to aid Czechoslovakia would be highly dependent on French actions. (The current Polish government, with aid to Ukraine, seems to have learned the lesson of 1938.)

But Gen. Charles de Gaulle said at the time, "It's quite simple. ... Depending on actual circumstances, we will recall the 'disponibles' or mobilize the reserves. Then, looking through the loopholes of our fortifications, we will passively witness the enslavement of Europe."

@beckyromero I've also read books on WW2 and would love to info dump.

Nobody was prepared for war at the stage you mentioned but yes, Germany especially.

The blitzkrieg (,though it was never called that until after) took advantage of concentrating the best troops and a high risk gamble invading through the Ardennes. It was high risk but it worked.

The real massively understated factor in WW2 was the German's lack of oil. USA produced 70% of the worlds supply and the Third Reich had to juse massive bureaucratic innovation to make what they had work well enough. Given mechanised war was the German armies hallmark, this was a big issue. They had more horses than tanks. Senior people even recommended de merchandising during WW2.

This is why they had such an aggressive strategy. Individually, Germany was Europe's strongest nation but it it was weaker than Britain and France combined. In a long war, they would have lost by attrition, just like ww1. Hitler gambled and won.

You brought up the Soviet union. Then the world's second biggest economy spent 20% of GDP on it's military. modern Russia had a GDP similar to Italy..I think this understates it's power a bit but it's clearly no longer in the superpower category.

NAZI Germany wanted European domination because of Lebensraum ideology. Fyi, Russia doesn't lack for space. They also wanted soviet natural resources. Hitler was inspired by the British empire and also America. His diaries tell a tall of wanting to colonise the easy as the Yankee manifest destiny did for the west of a different continent.

Putin wants to rebuild the soviet union territory or that of the Tzarist empire. Geographically, they were pretty much the same. That should get resisted on principles of national self determination. However, the Donbass region and crimes are more russian than European by population anyway.

So... should western militaries have a hot water with Russia? No. Should we protect Ukrainian sovereignty for those who want it? Yes. Should er keep spending money and lives defending a few provinces just so we can say we won? No. A negotiated settlement makes sense. Biden will probably do that too, if he wins. Though the odds lean against that tbh.

@Elessar My reply to Becky is also to you.

As a side note, I'm waiting for the bit about Italy"s WW2 campaign.

Putin is like Mussolini. He could conquer Abyssinia (Ethiopia and the poorest most underdeveloped place in the world) but couldn't take Greece without the Germans.

@Burnley123 jThey have the second world economy backing them. Now mostly behind the curtains, but once they'll open their own front in Taiwan and the Pacific you can bet you'll see more direct and open involvement.

They do have imperialistic ambitions towards Europe, they don't care about Asian lands. They keep those because resourceful, but their focus has always been also historically Europe. There's also coincidentally some pretty significant resources right under the Donbass as well, in fact one of the proposed rationalizations for the war at the very first is that they wanted to control those so Europe couldn't independently extract its own gas and buy less of theirs. If this was the actual cause they're really dumb because they'd have obtained the exact opposite effect (similarly to their own provided justification about sharing borders with NATO, which now doubled after they forced Finland's hand).

This is a counter sense. The Dombass is an Ukrainian region and Russia itself formally and practically consider it Ukrainian. By ceding the Donbass you're not protecting Ukraine's sovereignty, you're dismantling it.

A negotiated settlement would be broken in 5-10 years. Remember how they negotiated that they would've left Ukraine alone if it renounced to its nuclear armaments, and then the agreement was broken and they took both Crimea (2014) and now the Dombass.

@Elessar Bad thing must be worse. I'm sure law of escalation is a logical fallacy

Not sure it's on topic but Russia/USSR did care about Asian lands at one point. It fought Japan in two wars in the first half of the twentieth century.

The argument I think I'm debating against is whether Putin is Hitler and whether he constitutes a threat to Europe. Not the Donbass or Crimea. Not latvia. But Europe. This is where the analogy completely falls down. I've explicitly said that Putin would ideally want the USSR terrorist though perhaps lacks the means to get it. That much er agree on.

National self determination is the idea that people in a region get to decide what country they are from. I agree with this as a political principle more than I care which empire wins.

@Elessar Bush also used the term Axis of Evil to justify the invasion of Iraq. This situation is different but again, it's a tiresome WW2 analogy applied to literally everything else.

I was trolling you about Italy in WW2 their troops were poorly rained and didn't want to fight.. Modern russian is in between Italy and nazi Germany in terms of Geopolitical power.

@Burnley123

We disagree about Iraq. But although Saddam Hussein and his henchmen were certainly evil, they posed nowhere near the CONVENTIONAL military threat that Nazi Germany did during World War II.

@beckyromero Yeah, you still literally still defend the Iraq War. Liberal hawk with sharp tallons!

President Backy would have Team America trying to calm her down and be more sensible.

It's past my bedtime. I'll respond to the wall of texts I'll get from you and @Elessar tomorrow.

@Burnley123
A long war only favored the Allies (meaning the UK & France) with France still in the war and Germany not developing the atomic bomb. A shorter war (3 years or so, counting from the fall of 1938) without U.S. aid absolutely favored Germany.

Had the Luftwaffe prevailed in the skies over Britain, it would have been over.

The thing is it really doesn't matter who is favord to win a long war if that side loses in a short one.


Would you have negotiated with Nazi Germany? If so, when? 1938? 1939? 1940? 1941? etc. etc. etc.

I know you don't like Churchill, but ultimately he was right, not Lord Halifax.

@Burnley123 I'm not sure I'm getting the point you're trying to make about law of escalation

Well yes, but Japan now is a whole different beast than Japan then, I don't think they'd care. Modern reasons for being interested in keeping all that landmass would be to prevent China, India from expanding, and for maintaining a certain proximity to the US, and essentially a buffer zone. That said, culturally speaking the.land has no significance whatsoever to them. Asian Russians are at all effects class B citizens within Russia. They (Putin et al) see themselves as the bastion of Slavic people, and the very concept of Slavic people is an European not Asian thing.

Latvia is both European (geographically), part of the EU and part of NATO so I'm not sure where you're drawing the line of "(not) Europe" here. Auto-determination would also maintain both Crimea and the Donbass out of Russia, and a lot of parts of Russia (notably Chechnya) too. At least, before Putin did ethnic cleansing and forced the locals they hadn't r#ped and killed yet to "vote" for their sham referendum with an AK-47 pointed at their heads.

@beckyromero I wouldn't negotiate with the Nazis and have not said I would. Again, all my arguments are to demonstrate that these situations are not the same. I don't have to answer your question.

Britain and America have also invaded countries. Should people negotiate with us?