Tag Info

New answers tagged

5

One answer would be that a military "contingency plan" of sorts was written into Fall WeiƟ itself - the operational plan for the invasion of Poland was written so as to begin no later than September 1st, 1939. However, it is probably very unlikely that the invasion of Poland would have been canceled if Treaty of Non-aggression hadn't been signed prior to ...


1

Hitler was not in the practice of making "detailed contingency plans". He was more of "failure is not an option" type guy. If you read Speer's book, "Inside the Third Reich" you will find that it makes clear Hitler considered the pact with the Soviet Union an essential precursor to attacking Poland. The strategic situation demanded this for several reasons. ...


0

First, the Soviet Union and Germany never agreed to attack Poland or share it. They agreed on spheres of influence, which would come into play with 'border changes'. Said 'border changes' did not mean an invasion. Hitler had accomplished much without war and there was little reason for him to think he would not get away with victimizing Poland with no ...


1

"Everyone knows that having to fight on two opposite fronts at once is bad..." It can be, for sure. Everyone looks back to 1812 and Napoleon rather than 1918. Germany fought a two-front war and effectively won in the East with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Germans also believed (somewhat correctly) that the resources gained from their occupied territories ...


1

In August 1939, while Japan and the USSR were skirmishing, Germany and the USSR signed a Non-Aggression Pact that allowed Stalin to put some more focus on Japan (among other things). By early 1941, Japan decided it was time to focus on securing its oil supply in Indonesia and so shifted to its Pacific strategy. Hence they signed a neutrality pact with the ...


2

This was true of government, not so much of technical managers. However it is likely that a technical manager would have been a Party member because technocrat types tended to be attracted to the NSDAP because of its ideology of applying "science" to society and government, and its willingness to give power to "experts" to formulate and implement policies. ...


1

The problem was that the attack on England had failed. This meant that there was no way to relieve the blockade on Germany. Hitler was bankrupt with no options other than attacking Russia. They were literally ripping up hand railings in Berlin to get scrap metal. Everyone was on rations which were growing more stringent by the month. The Soviet Union was the ...


1

Ok here is the real answer. The entire purpose of the War was to fight Russia. Russia was Hitlers main foe and ultimate objective from the start. He did not want to destroy the United Kingdom or United States per say, he wanted to build a Germany centered Europe and trade with them (ironically kind of how it is today). Basically he wanted Germany to become ...


2

The opinions amongst historians amateur and professional range from economic and military to accusations of conspiracy. 'Traditional' Capitalist Interpretation Economic Liberals argue that the fall of the USSR is purely economic and is yet another piece of evidence that Communism does not work as an economic model. They cite the failure of the collectives, ...


2

This is a very broad question but I will try to summarize it simply into a few paragraphs. Of course, I will probably be lynched by this, as the consensus ranges from economic and military to accusations of conspiracy. Military, Economy, and Openness/Restructuring In short, all 3 factors. Reagan and Thatcher's increased belligerence towards the Soviet ...



Top 50 recent answers are included