Why did Hitler and Stalin not meet in person?

[Volklin]

Yeah i know they were at war but before that during the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact there was a question of whether Stalin and Hitler should meet in person but then Molotov was sent to Hitler instead, anyone know why these 2 didn't meet? They usually had positive things to say about one another and admired each other personally even though their ideologies were opposites. It happened a lot with other heads of nations meeting personally like Chamberlain with Hitler before they were at war, or Stailn and De Gaulle, the big 3, or the Cold War opposing leaders , but curiously why not Hitler/Stalin, did they simply think it would be too nerve wracking, energy or untrusting to be in 1 room together?

[LAstry]

Question has been asked before
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=261817&p=2394014#p2394014

[George L Gregory]

It is quite odd when I come to think of it considering they had a pact and both of the countries they led invaded Poland.

After all, it was two years later when Hitler decided to invade the Soviet Union.

[gebhk]

Hi George

To be fair I'd say it's fairly clear he had decided on, that much, much earlier. The only decision that was left to be made was when. I suspect Stalin was well aware of this (after all AH made no great secret of his ambitions until it became politic to do so). If one or both were convinced of the inevitability of war, they no doubt would not have wanted the inevitable propaganda black eye of a Chamberlanian 'peace in our time' fiasco when the inevitable happened.

[ljadw]

I disagree : the attack on the USSR in June 1941 was imposed on Germany because Britain refused to surrender .
A British capitulation would have made Barbarossa impossible and unnecessary .
That Hitler was talking in 1925 in Mein Kampf about Drang nach Osten ( in which the USSR was not included ) does not mean that in December 1940 Hitler decided to attack the USSR .
If there would be a Barbarossa ( which is unlikely ) it could and would only happen in the 1950 s ,without Hitler .
And, as the Third Reich would have disappeared before 1953.......

[George L Gregory]

That Hitler was talking in 1925 in Mein Kampf about Drang nach Osten ( in which the USSR was not included ) does not mean that in December 1940 Hitler decided to attack the USSR .

Well that’s clearly not true.

Hitler wrote:

And so we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy of our pre-War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the east. At long last we break off the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-War period and shift to the soil policy of the future.

If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states.

If the British (and other Allies) had not bothered to continue fighting Germany then Hitler would have been able to have done whatever he wanted to do in Eastern Europe. Hitler’s views about where Lebensraum was to be achieved always came to the conclusion - Eastern Europe.

[George L Gregory]

Hi George

To be fair I'd say it's fairly clear he had decided on, that much, much earlier. The only decision that was left to be made was when. I suspect Stalin was well aware of this (after all AH made no great secret of his ambitions until it became politic to do so). If one or both were convinced of the inevitability of war, they no doubt would not have wanted the inevitable propaganda black eye of a Chamberlanian 'peace in our time' fiasco when the inevitable happened.

Do we have any proof that Stalin had actually read Mein Kampf prior to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union?

Even if it had been to show the ‘good’ sides of both the Nazi regime and the Soviet regime, I still don’t understand why they didn’t meet considering other Nazis met other Soviets when it was apparently fit to do so.

[Cantankerous]

Hi George

To be fair I'd say it's fairly clear he had decided on, that much, much earlier. The only decision that was left to be made was when. I suspect Stalin was well aware of this (after all AH made no great secret of his ambitions until it became politic to do so). If one or both were convinced of the inevitability of war, they no doubt would not have wanted the inevitable propaganda black eye of a Chamberlanian 'peace in our time' fiasco when the inevitable happened.

Do we have any proof that Stalin had actually read Mein Kampf prior to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union?

Even if it had been to show the ‘good’ sides of both the Nazi regime and the Soviet regime, I still don’t understand why they didn’t meet considering other Nazis met other Soviets when it was apparently fit to do so.

According to General Dmitri Volkogonov's semi-novelized biography of Stalin (published in English as Stalin: Triumph and Tragedy) Stalin read a copy of Mein Kampf and underlined a passage about prospective German colonization of Eastern Europe. Nikolai Bukharin, a member of the Central Committe and editor-in-chief of the Izvestiya , alluded to Mein Kampf in his speech at the 17th Party Congress. However, it is quite an irony that the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was signed to avert war between Germany and the USSR, which is why many in the Soviet government and armed forces, and Communist Party thought that Hitler was using the non-aggression pact to buy time for a planned invasion of the USSR.

[ljadw]

That Hitler was talking in 1925 in Mein Kampf about Drang nach Osten ( in which the USSR was not included ) does not mean that in December 1940 Hitler decided to attack the USSR .

Well that’s clearly not true.

Hitler wrote:

And so we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy of our pre-War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the east. At long last we break off the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-War period and shift to the soil policy of the future.

If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states.

If the British (and other Allies) had not bothered to continue fighting Germany then Hitler would have been able to have done whatever he wanted to do in Eastern Europe. Hitler’s views about where Lebensraum was to be achieved always came to the conclusion - Eastern Europe.

If Britain had capitulated in the Summer of 1940, this would have made Barbarossa impossible .
Why ?
Because the occupation of Britain and Ireland would have demanded 50 divisions and where would Germany get these divisions ? From the Barbarossa Forces,which means that only 100 divisions would remain for Barbarossa, which was insufficient .
And that Hitler considered Eastern Europe as the place for Germany's Lebensraum,was NOT the reason why he attacked the USSR in June 1941,as the situation,whatever scenarios you can invent,was very bad for Germany . The future would not be better .
The aim of Barbarossa was
1 a successful invasion of the USSR
2 the conquest of European Russia
3 the occupation of European Russia
4 the colonization of European Russia
5 the exploitation of European Russia
NOT ONE of these 5 points was possible in June 1941,because Germany was too weak ,and Hitler knew this ( he was thinking about Barbarossa after 1950 ).
Point 1 depended on the collapse of the Soviet regime in the Summer, NOT on the strength of the Ostheer
The same for point 2
Point 3 was out of the question,as Germany had not the needed manpower
Point 4 could not happen as there were not millions of Germans willing to move to the East
5 Point 5 : idem :without colonization, no exploitation as imagined by Berlin . Besides :Germany did not need the resources of the East and their exploitation would bankrupt the German economy .
The only reason why Hitler attacked the Soviets was to force Britain to give up ,but he ''forgot '' that if he attacked and defeated the Soviets,he could not defeat Britain and if he defeated Britain ,he could not defeat the Soviets .
Hitler was thinking about Barbarossa after 1950 (June 1941 was an improvisation ) ,but after 1950 Barbarossa would still fail and would also be unnecessary .

[ljadw]

That Hitler was talking in 1925 in Mein Kampf about Drang nach Osten ( in which the USSR was not included ) does not mean that in December 1940 Hitler decided to attack the USSR .

Well that’s clearly not true.

Hitler wrote:

And so we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy of our pre-War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the east. At long last we break off the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-War period and shift to the soil policy of the future.

If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states.

Even if Hitler had not said this in 1925 , he still would have attacked the USSR in 1941. There is no causal relation between what he said in Mein Kampf and the Barbarossa order.
Mein Kampf was not the blueprint of Germany's foreign policy after 1933 .

[Sheldrake]

If Britain had capitulated in the Summer of 1940, this would have made Barbarossa impossible .
Why ?
Because the occupation of Britain and Ireland would have demanded 50 divisions and where would Germany get these divisions ? From the Barbarossa Forces,which means that only 100 divisions would remain for Barbarossa, which was insufficient .
And that Hitler considered Eastern Europe as the place for Germany's Lebensraum,was NOT the reason why he attacked the USSR in June 1941,as the situation,whatever scenarios you can invent,was very bad for Germany . The future would not be better .
The aim of Barbarossa was
1 a successful invasion of the USSR
2 the conquest of European Russia
3 the occupation of European Russia
4 the colonization of European Russia
5 the exploitation of European Russia
NOT ONE of these 5 points was possible in June 1941,because Germany was too weak ,and Hitler knew this ( he was thinking about Barbarossa after 1950 ).
Point 1 depended on the collapse of the Soviet regime in the Summer, NOT on the strength of the Ostheer
The same for point 2
Point 3 was out of the question,as Germany had not the needed manpower
Point 4 could not happen as there were not millions of Germans willing to move to the East
5 Point 5 : idem :without colonization, no exploitation as imagined by Berlin . Besides :Germany did not need the resources of the East and their exploitation would bankrupt the German economy .
The only reason why Hitler attacked the Soviets was to force Britain to give up ,but he ''forgot '' that if he attacked and defeated the Soviets,he could not defeat Britain and if he defeated Britain ,he could not defeat the Soviets .
Hitler was thinking about Barbarossa after 1950 (June 1941 was an improvisation ) ,but after 1950 Barbarossa would still fail and would also be unnecessary .

A couple of questions.

#1. What is the source for the figure of 50 divisions as the garrison for the British Isles? For much of 1942-43 France was garrisoned with about half that number, with the garrison only rising with the threat of a cross channel invasion.

#2 Hitler's argument for Op Barbarossa was in order to defeat Britain's last possible ally on mainland Europe. By this logic, if Britian had fallen in 1940, there would not have been an urgent need to invade the Soviet Union.

....and an observation.

After the Fall of France Hitler grossly overestimated his own abilities and those of his armed forces. In a couple of months his armed forces had decisively defeated the military alliance that had defied and then ground down Imperial Germany. Goven that the Kaiser's men had thrashed the Russians Operation Barbarossa was on the face of it easier than beating the French and British.

[gebhk]

Looks like we are in danger of disappearing down yet another bizarre rabbit hole. This time debating whether a bumblevbee can fly - because according to someone's home-grown theories it can't but the damned thing is observed to do so. To me it's fairly straightforward - if someone says, and repeatedly, that their intention is to do something and then he does it, then it's a reasonable assumption that he meant to do so all along. In any event, it is not what we think that matters, it is what the two men in question, and their PR advisers, thought that is relevant. Both clearly did think war with the other was a strong possibility. I would suggest that is all that is necessary for the purpose of this discussion.

[ljadw]

If Britain had capitulated in the Summer of 1940, this would have made Barbarossa impossible .
Why ?
Because the occupation of Britain and Ireland would have demanded 50 divisions and where would Germany get these divisions ? From the Barbarossa Forces,which means that only 100 divisions would remain for Barbarossa, which was insufficient .
And that Hitler considered Eastern Europe as the place for Germany's Lebensraum,was NOT the reason why he attacked the USSR in June 1941,as the situation,whatever scenarios you can invent,was very bad for Germany . The future would not be better .
The aim of Barbarossa was
1 a successful invasion of the USSR
2 the conquest of European Russia
3 the occupation of European Russia
4 the colonization of European Russia
5 the exploitation of European Russia
NOT ONE of these 5 points was possible in June 1941,because Germany was too weak ,and Hitler knew this ( he was thinking about Barbarossa after 1950 ).
Point 1 depended on the collapse of the Soviet regime in the Summer, NOT on the strength of the Ostheer
The same for point 2
Point 3 was out of the question,as Germany had not the needed manpower
Point 4 could not happen as there were not millions of Germans willing to move to the East
5 Point 5 : idem :without colonization, no exploitation as imagined by Berlin . Besides :Germany did not need the resources of the East and their exploitation would bankrupt the German economy .
The only reason why Hitler attacked the Soviets was to force Britain to give up ,but he ''forgot '' that if he attacked and defeated the Soviets,he could not defeat Britain and if he defeated Britain ,he could not defeat the Soviets .
Hitler was thinking about Barbarossa after 1950 (June 1941 was an improvisation ) ,but after 1950 Barbarossa would still fail and would also be unnecessary .

A couple of questions.

#1. What is the source for the figure of 50 divisions as the garrison for the British Isles? For much of 1942-43 France was garrisoned with about half that number, with the garrison only rising with the threat of a cross channel invasion.

#2 Hitler's argument for Op Barbarossa was in order to defeat Britain's last possible ally on mainland Europe. By this logic, if Britian had fallen in 1940, there would not have been an urgent need to invade the Soviet Union.

....and an observation.

After the Fall of France Hitler grossly overestimated his own abilities and those of his armed forces. In a couple of months his armed forces had decisively defeated the military alliance that had defied and then ground down Imperial Germany. Goven that the Kaiser's men had thrashed the Russians Operation Barbarossa was on the face of it easier than beating the French and British.

#1 OTOH..
The population of occupied France was only the half of that of the UK + Ireland :25 against 50 million .
From Nigel Askey's Operation Barbarossa Volume II B P 86
Strength of AG D on June 22 1941 (which was stationed in occupied France and the Low Countries = a population of 45 million ):43 divisions and 509000 men (army, ground troops of the LW and KM ) .
# 2 There would not have been an urgent need,there would even be no need ,even if the British Dominions helped by the US would continue the war .
Reality was that Germany was too weak to defeat and occupy Western Europe AND to defeat and occupy Russia .
About Russia : one of the reasons ( there were several of them ) that only 2 German armies were located in the East in 1914 ,was that Imperial Germany could afford only a short war and that a short war in the East was excluded ,and in August 1917 ( after 3 years ) Germany had occupied still only a very small part of Russia and Russia was still undefeated . Without the Russian civil war , Germany could not defeat Russia .

[George L Gregory]

Even if Hitler had not said this in 1925 , he still would have attacked the USSR in 1941. There is no causal relation between what he said in Mein Kampf and the Barbarossa order.
Mein Kampf was not the blueprint of Germany's foreign policy after 1933 .

Of course there is! He never changed his mind when it came to his thoughts about gaining living space and repeatedly in the 1920s and 1930s said that it was in the East.

Don’t put words into my mouth. I never said it was the “blueprint”, but anyone who wanted to see what his desires were could have easily read the book. His views never changed from when he started his political career in the late 1910s to when he died in 1945.

[George L Gregory]

Looks like we are in danger of disappearing down yet another bizarre rabbit hole. This time debating whether a bumblevbee can fly - because according to someone's home-grown theories it can't but the damned thing is observed to do so. To me it's fairly straightforward - if someone says, and repeatedly, that their intention is to do something and then he does it, then it's a reasonable assumption that he meant to do so all along. In any event, it is not what we think that matters, it is what the two men in question, and their PR advisers, thought that is relevant. Both clearly did think war with the other was a strong possibility. I would suggest that is all that is necessary for the purpose of this discussion.

Unfortunately ljadw has a tendency to do that, but at east he keeps us entertained every now and then.