- 24 Dec 2013 16:21
#14344859
The Soviet Union would not have declared war if Germany and Britain had ceased hostilities. Stalin was cautious in his military aggressions. Caution characterises his policy towards the Nazis prior to Barbarossa. It characterises his policy towards the allies in 1944 - 45 when he could have leveraged the huge power of the Communist parties against the allies if he had chosen. The same in China and in Korea. To some extent caution even characterises his mode of operation in the internal party power struggles of the 1920's never striking till victory was virtually assured. It is this caution that at the end of the day made Stalin preferably to Hitler for the West. From a Western perspective Stalin was not in any way more moral than Hitler.
It is very easy to view things with the benefit of hindsight. Long term Stalin was just as committed to world revolution as Lenin and Trotsky. However Stalin to some extent admired and identified with Hitler. He felt Hitler was a man he could do business with, from Stalin's perspective much easier than the hypocritical moralistic Capitalist West. Hitler could have had long term peace with Soviet Union, if he'd been prepared to deal with Stalin as an equal. Victory was Hitler's in June 1940. He threw it away by his inability to make peace with nations he'd conquered, to compromise sufficiently with Britain and his was war against the Soviet union. To be fair to Hitler his low opinion of the Soviet Union's war making capability was very much the conventional view at the time. The British Army was substantially inferior to Germany's. If Hitler had focused his armed forces and his diplomatic leverage in the Mediterranean he could easily have brought Britain to the negotiating table. Churchill would have been forced out of office and the appears would have been dominant. The shock of defeat in Britain might well have led to a Vichy type government.
Progressives lie scattered on Woke's highway, Diverse ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.