BtB’s Original Mark:

I would like to state the obvious but repressed, which does not require even the deepest knowledge of the causes and processes of the Second World War. So that means working to ensure that not only one perspective, that of the winner, is possible and necessary, but that doesn’t mean retrospectively supporting what happened.

You said you were interested in alternate history. Hence the following question: What would have happened if Germany and England had found a peace settlement in the course of 1940? What prevented that? (Please no standard answer from the victory view!)

What is seldom discussed in connection with Hitler is that his eastward push was only partly about retaking former German territories and conquering new territories, but at least as importantly about crushing communism as a crusade. Various other nations also joined in this aim, including large numbers of men from the occupied territories.

The goal of destroying Bolshevism/Communism was actively pursued by Britain and other Western countries through the deployment of military forces in the Soviet Union (along with the White Army) as early as the 1920s, a historical fact. They had failed, however, and Trotsky’s Red Army was victorious. Shouldn’t England have at least pursued the same goal as Hitler’s Germany in 1940? It may have been a starting point for talks between Germany and England. Great Britain should certainly have made further concessions to Germany beyond the 1938 negotiating status. But the way things played out as result of World War II was ultimately not very favorable to Britain, let alone all of Europe, which thereafter was just an appendage of either America or the Bolsheviks.

For 20th century history, my current focus is the first two decades including pre-WWI German civilization. I know you’re time constrained, but for others I recommend the book “Archduke Franz Ferdinand Lives!” It is alternative history fiction which envisages a world in which the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand at Sarajevo in 1914 never happened. Josef Joffe (Publisher-Editor of Die Zeit) remarked about the book: “Ned Lebow has produced the most sophisticated “what-if” history in many years. Read this fascinating book to jog your mind and to understand the worst and best century in world history – why we are where we are now.”

My next book on that period is ‘Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age’ by Modris Eksteins. It is a deeply flawed but very interesting European cultural history which looks at the WWI period as a cultural phenomenon. Eksteins sees the war as being important primarily because it heralds the birth of 20th Century modernism.

Ref:
“…side effect that communism not only survived but was then able to spread halfway around the world like a virus. America is responsible for that.”

I would put forth the proposition; “America is not responsible for that, the vanilla communists ( w/ their fellow travelers and useful idiots) and the progressives wings of both the democrat and republican party who ran our government, are responsible. They always loved Stalin and haven’t been happy since he died, except for 8 years under lord god obama.”

Thanks for your answer and the good advices. I’m very busy, but I’ll try to do a few posts here from time to time. The freedom of expression that prevails here drives me. But before I can go into the 21st century in later posts, I still have to work through the Second World War. An extremely hot topic, taking into account the personal origins and understandable sensibilities of the blog owner.

With the declared goal of all knowing all truths, I am not interested in what the victors proclaimed as truth, but rather the perspectives and truths of all those involved. The saying that the winner writes history is no coincidence. This means first and foremost that one must be able (I know this is understandably an impertinence for many) to treat the political actor Hitler in a differentiated way with regard to his goals and actions, especially in geopolitical questions. This differentiation must be possible despite Hitler’s immense crimes, which I do not deny its degree and effects, which however, unfortunately always, almost inevitably, complicate any discussion of the above-mentioned goal. A black and white look must be avoided. Do you agree with me here?

A first point to consider: the fact that in the period 1941-45 America ensured the victory and thus the survival of the then already communist Soviet Union (and thus the survival of the entire communist ideology!), but then fought Soviet Union in cold war of 45 years duration (which began immediately after 1945) ruthlessly, can only be understood if viewed from the perspective of America’s geopolitical power interests. Questions of human rights and persecuted groups (eg the Jews) played no role in Realpolitik. Otherwise you would have acted differently.

America was concerned with establishing itself as a new world power (replacing England, which btw belongs to the losers of WWII effectively) and gaining a foothold on the European continent. This goal was achieved, but with the side effect that communism not only survived, but was then able to spread halfway around the world like a virus. America is responsible for that. A mutated variant (cultural Marxism) of this has hit America today as a late effect and is doing its work.

As a Historian Mr. Z certainly has a thorough understanding of humanity’s accomplishments in Space during the last half of the 20th century. I have his books ‘The Universe in a Mirror’, ‘Leaving Earth’, and the ‘Chronological Encylopedia of Discoveries in Space’, and I recommend them to you.

The 21st Century is an entirely different animal from the 20th Century, and there are very few Historians who offer insightful analysis into both periods. For a Historian to write about the 21st Century, he needs to grasp the broad themes of world history of the last 500 years, and combine that with a deep understanding of the post WWII global economics, the leading Civilizations (think Samuel Huntington), and current day Geopolitics. Historian Niall Ferguson is one person I know with those qualifications. His books are contentious because he is grappling with present day difficult issues and he is writing for the general public.
If your time is constrained, here is a link to a 20 page article titled “Are We All Global Historians Now? An Interview with David Armitage”.

https://scholar.harvard.edu/armitage/publications/are-we-all-global-historians-now-interview-david-armitage

Finally please understand that there are numerous American Conservative who recognize that a German led Europe is an inevitability. NATO is past its prime, and European Civilization legitimately needs to separate itself from Global America. If the German People want to make a permanent Peace with the Russian Civilization, I wish you all the luck in the world.

I’ll come back to your very interesting comment above a little later. In the larger context, I would first like to present this short but very exciting video.

Presentation George Friedman at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, February 4th, 2015.
Friedman is founder of Stratfor, and served as the company’s CEO until May 2015

“George Friedman: Alliance Germany/Russia would be a treat to US dominance”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wijd10BZS1w

I can think of 12 people that might disagree.

Yeah, that was a long time ago, but everyone else is doing a poor imitation of what we did with boots on the ground. As commercial opportunities present themselves, people will take advantage.

Extraction from paper’s introduction:

“… even today’ Soyuz launcher are based on the basic developments of German experts.”

https://www.scientistsandfriends.com/files/JBIS.pdf

https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/npr/72pavel.pdf

Questioner: The successes during the Soviet Union were not as great as many people think. But putting that aside, they occurred for several reasons:

1. In the 1960s the communists who were in power were generally supported by the population. They had won World War II, pushing Germany out of Russia when it invaded their homeland. That support translated into an eager willingness to do what that leadership wanted. And that leadership (Khrushchev at the head) wanted spectacular stunts for propaganda reasons.

2. That Soviet victory in WWII against the Germans was made possible in great part (but not wholly) by the gigantic amount of financial and material aid provided by Great Britain and the United States, as well as by the materials the Soviets confiscated from Germany after the war. It helped fuel much of the success in the next two decades.

3. The Soviet leadership in the 50s and 60s, under Khrushchev, used competition within the government to fuel success. Khrushchev especially set different aerospace design bureaus against each other, having them compete for government contracts.

Brezhnev in the 1970s ended this competition, instead assigning specific areas of work to specific design bureaus, with little or no overlap. The lack of competition stifled innovation, which is why Soviet space efforts became less and less and slower and slower throughout the 80s and 90s.

Why were the Russians so much more successful in space in Soviet times, when there were no private companies, than today, when they are at least trying to privatize this area?

Someone who is against communism asks that. Perhaps it is (at least in this area) “only” due to the lack of money and experienced engineers and workers and not to the form of ownership of the companies involved (at least in this sector)?

Actually, based on results, the Martians don’t like the Russians. Which proves they are civilized folk, ’cause lots of people don’t like Putin’s Rodina