historygeek2021 wrote: ↑
23 Feb 2021 21:27
Stalin's plan was always to attack Germany - after Germany had exhausted itself in a war against the West.
The only reason why war between Germany and the USSR became certain is because Hitler, and Hitler alone, made it so. Simply saying that Stalin was going to do this or that, to wisk away Hitler's responsibility for starting an avoidable conflict, none of that constitutes proof towards anything.
An insurmountable one. Germany could not conquer Egypt. It couldn't even hold on to North Africa or Sicily once the United States entered the war.
I would have thought between Egypt and the USSR you'd have identified attacking the USSR as the insurmountable objective.
The Axis frittered away more of the British Empire in the OTL than they would have with a "Mediterranean strategy." Japan conquered Britain's most valuable colonies in the Far East. And yet Churchill stayed in power.
If Stalin were to take India and the Middle East, do you think that Churchill still has a job as PM?
A rational person might conclude it is better to become Stalin's vassal than to have your country completely annihilated. But the only Germans in 1941 who would have been fine with becoming Stalin's vassal were the communists locked in concentration camps.
Why would Stalin need to attack his own vassal? You have a fundamental inconsistency between viewpoints on the Soviet Union, in that you say Germany's submission to the USSR was inevitable, but also that Stalin would certainly attack Germany. Those are two conclusions are mutually exclusive; if Stalin can achieve vassalhood by doing nothing, then he needs not attack. If Stalin must attack, then achieving domination otherwise is not possible.