Should Stalin have made a Separate Peace with Hitler in 1945?

Tadhg Gaelach

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
41,028
Likes
40,509
Location
By the Gulag wall.


Imagine a scenario where the Red Army stops at the Eastern border of Germany - having made a separate peace with Hitler. This was actually on the mind of the Anglos as their worst case scenario. They would then have been left with the task of fighting the Wermacht on one front. And despite the catastrophic losses in Russia, the fact is that the Wermacht would still have been no push over for the Anglos in 1945 - if they didn't have to man the Eastern Front at the same time.

After all, the Yanks are lousy ground troops - always have been. And the Brits weren't really up to much on land either. I think it quite likely that the Germans would have repelled them and forced them to a negotiated peace on the Western front.

Well, how would that have helped Stalin? For sure, the Soviets wanted revenge. But revenge can very often cost far too much. The Red Army lost one million men capturing Berlin - only to give half of it away for nothing. Stalin didn't want to stay in Germany - he offered to the Anglos that they all put out - twice - but they refused. Having the National Socialists still in power in Germany would have a great strategic advantage for the Soviet Union - it would have kept the Yanks occupied in Europe with something other than attacking the USSR. Germany would have been in a terrible situation between the USSR and the Anglos - but it would have held the line in all likelihood. Germany would have acted as an excellent buffer.

I would say we'd still have the Soviet Union today if Stalin and Hitler had made a separate peace. Europe would still be Europe.
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
41,028
Likes
40,509
Location
By the Gulag wall.
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
hitler was just too backstabbing broke every deal he ever made Facepalm

Well, Stalin would have been mad to trust him, but it wasn't a question of trust. Germany would have been forced into the role of a buffer zone between the Soviet Union and the Yanks.
 

Tadhg Ó Raghallaigh

Donator
PI Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2017
Messages
6,473
Likes
6,726
Location
Over the hills and far away
Well, Stalin would have been mad to trust him, but it wasn't a question of trust. Germany would have been forced into the role of a buffer zone between the Soviet Union and the Yanks.
Didn't that happen eventually anyway, a chara? Germany became and still is America's docile, cucked bitch.
 

parentheses

PI Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
1,607
Likes
3,322
There was no chance of a separate peace in 1945.

Stalin had been promised lots of gains by the western allies by that stage.

There was nothing to gain by dealing with the Germans.
 

Catalpa

PI Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2018
Messages
1,907
Likes
3,830
He made a deal with Adolf in '39

And look how that turned out!

The only western Leader Stalin trusted was Roosevelt - and he died just before the War ended.

To him Churchill was an Imperialist Warmonger [correct] and Truman was just an American huckster politician who became the President by chance.
 

Macushla

PI Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,201
Likes
4,201
Around 1944 Goebbels wanted this. There were plans to replace Ribbentrop with Goebbels as Foreign Minister, send him to negotiate a separate peace with Stalin. Fell through though as Bormann had it out for the good doctor and was controlling who had access to Hitler's court.
 

Macushla

PI Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,201
Likes
4,201
When Roosevelt died too there were mad plans circling German HQ about making separate peace. Speer was to fly to meet Truman. Hitler saw Roosevelt's death as Providence intervening, he couldn't help but compare it to the Tsarina's sudden death which saved Frederick II's hide.
 
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
1,750
Likes
2,091
hitler was just too backstabbing broke every deal he ever made Facepalm
Rubbish, his loyalty to Mussolini cost him the war, ditto the Japs, Donald Day was a reporter in pre war eastern Europe and was on the spot, give this audio book Onward Christian Soldiers, by Donald Day - Vanguard News Network Forum a listen , he deals with the attitudes of the Baltic states, the Poles ,Slovaks, Finns etc it was a bit more nuanced than most believe, the Poles don't come out smelling of roses having no difficulty carving off lumps of its neighbors when it could but in our dumbed down world they are the little victims.
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
41,028
Likes
40,509
Location
By the Gulag wall.
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
There was no chance of a separate peace in 1945.

Stalin had been promised lots of gains by the western allies by that stage.

There was nothing to gain by dealing with the Germans.

Well, Stalin would have had to be very nieve to believe any promise from the Anglos. Of course, he got nothing from them. But politics \ war isn't really about trusting your opponent, it's about boxing him into a corner so that the only thing he can do is what you want him to do. Maybe Stalin did underestimate the US Régime as an enemy. One should always remember to give the Anglo-Saxon exactly the same amount of trust as you would give a dog with rabies.
 

Tadhg Gaelach

Staff member
Moderator
Donator
PI Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
41,028
Likes
40,509
Location
By the Gulag wall.
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
He made a deal with Adolf in '39

And look how that turned out!

The only western Leader Stalin trusted was Roosevelt - and he died just before the War ended.

To him Churchill was an Imperialist Warmonger [correct] and Truman was just an American huckster politician who became the President by chance.

Churchill was the reason the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement broke down. With Churchill sniping at Hitler's back, he was in a very bad strategic position.
 
Top Bottom