Printable View
1 What if the allies had remained neutral after the invasion of Poland? Woud Germany have turned on Russia and if so what would be the result
2 What if the allies had declared war on Russia instead of Germany?
3 What if the allies had declared war on both ?
4 What if the allies other than Russia of course had listened to Patton and attacked Russia after the defeat of Germany?
1) Hitler's true goal was Russia in the first place. He simply doesn't want the west to interfere, hence taking them out first.
If the West didn't react then Hitler would have attacked the West nonetheless. Poland was the bufferzone vs. Russia. The idea is not to alarm the USSR, hence the non-aggression pact ( I can't exactly remember when this was signed).
The other three are too extreme to consider. The world was weary of the war. They simply wanted it to end. Hence the atomic bombs, thus Russia wouldn't attack Japan themselves and complicate things up.
1: Hitler was obsessed with taking down Russia, war with Russia was inevitable as long as he held power.
2: A lot of Jews would have died, Germany would have been able to take down Russia, Germany would have possibly attacked the West afterwards or exspanded further to the East.
3: Russia=Dead Germany=Not quite dead, but likely would have lost.
4: If they beat Russia before they developed the bomb Russia would have fallen, Air Superiority and such would have been their downfall. Russia=Depopulated and non-communist.
Why? Hitler viewed the west as equals more or less. Indeed, din't he think that Gb was a natural ally of the 3rd Reich? And about not alarming the Reds, both knew that a showdown between the two was inevitable. The expansionistic nature of Communism and Hitler's dreams of living space would see to that. Parts of Poland I believe were to serve as a buffer so that the war wouldn't be fought one Russian soil. Not that it helped.Quote:
If the West didn't react then Hitler would have attacked the West nonetheless. Poland was the bufferzone vs. Russia. The idea is not to alarm the USSR, hence the non-aggression pact ( I can't exactly remember when this was signed).
Then no way do I see Hitler attacking the west. Ever. He would certainly join them in a Western Crusade against the Reds. The only way I think this could have happened is if the west actually did send troops to Finland(the French did threaten to do this didn't they?)Quote:
2 What if the allies had declared war on Russia instead of Germany?
I suppose that the Reds and the Germans would have not gone to war with each other as soon. Then again, if the Russians are busy trying to conquer India or the Middle East then I guess Hitler would have na eaier time in Russia.Quote:
3 What if the allies had declared war on both ?
I don't know. I'm pretty sure russian tanks were better than Western ones. But I think that the western Airforces were stronger. I guess that eventually the Allies win, even if they don't use nukes. America's economy will see to that. But still I don't see communism being slain. I think that the best the west could achieve would be to free the ethic groups in western USSR(Ukrain and Baltic states). Russia proper still red though.Quote:
4 What if the allies other than Russia of course had listened to Patton and attacked Russia after the defeat of Germany?
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by discovery1
He was concerned that should he invade and conquer Britain, he wouldnt be able to cope with the administration of the British Empire.
He wanted to rule the world alongside them, but if they wouldnt accept his terms, he would take them anyway.
Something along those lines.
Until recently I thought that this could only end one way, namely with the Russians triumphant. I fact I understand that in terms of manpower at least the Russians were at close to full stretch by 1945, so possibly the west would have had a chance to push them back to at least the Polish-Russian border. (which, there or thereabouts, is where any sensible person stops, IMHO.) Certainly as I recall the figures the US (with a bit of help from the other allies) could have out produced even the Russians in terms of materiel.Quote:
4 What if the allies other than Russia of course had listened to Patton and attacked Russia after the defeat of Germany?
However I also understand that the US forces in particular absolutely did NOT want to hang around in Europe a moment longer than they had to, and indeed that even demobilising in an orderly way was quite difficult. Therefore I think there would be a very real chance that the soliders would simply have refused to follow Patton et al. (This is not intended as a shot against American troops. They had been out of the States for maybe two years, and the war they signed up to fight was over. Its hardly surprising they wanted to go home. Bear in mind too that they had been told Uncle Joe and Ivan were their staunch allies fighting against Nazism. Quite hard to turn that round to Uncle Joe the enemy of the USA overnight.)
Hitler didn't want war to start in 1939. IIRC he assured his generals and Admirals the war would begin in 1945 against the western Allies (they were particularly worried about the British navy)
1 He would surely have attacked Russia, because this was the central part of his ideology. However, he would also have attacked France. He wanted that because of the Versaille treaty and because he served in France during WW I and was wounded there. France was his "forever" enemy and Russia the future colony.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
2 Russia would have broken down w/o the US support and with Japanese troops at his eastern frontier. Communism wouldn't have been an issue any longer, fashism would still be today. Maybe you would even see fashistic systems in the USA and in Britain.
3 In 1940 they would have lost the war. With Germany attacking France and the UK, Russia attacking India and the Japanese attacking far east the USA would have been standing alone very soon. The question is, how long an alliance between Germany, Russia and Japan could have lasted.
4 With the western airpower and the rests of German army, research and production the West might have won.
Result of 1-4: millions of additional victims. :furious3:
Errr wouldnt a load more people be dead? My ansew ~D
Result of 1-4: millions of additional victims. :furious3:[/QUOTE]
They died anyway... in communist prisons or in Syberia, maybe try to see it from the point of view of these 150 000 000 people who were living between the 2 mass murderers :bow:
What if I didn't crap this morning? What then? ~:confused:
you will die from constipation ~;) or maybe you will crap more next time.
He already craps enough ~:)
Keep your crap in the toilet, not here please. If you don't give a crap about this thread, then do your turdy work elsewhere. While fiber can help you force a bowel movement, nothing and no one is forcing you to read this thread.
Switching to "on-topic" mode...
1) Germany would have attacked Russia, but not in 1939. They weren't ready yet to take on the Russians. However, without Britain and France to fight, they would have lost the fine opportunity to further hone their blitzkrieg tactics that these two provided. Another interesting change would have been that Rommel would most likely have been commanding on the Eastern front.
2) This is a tough one. If Germany gets pulled in with the Allies against Russia, it could work for them but I think it may have more likely worked against Germany's favour. While the British/French would inflict casualties against the Russians, I doubt it would have been on the scale the Germans did in reality. Such a conflict would have probably ended in a stalemate - with Russia winning the land war but not being able to strike back at England or France. The battle would move to the Middle East and Asia - Russia vs the English colonies. Despite the casualties, it probably would have served to better prepare England, France and Russia against any future German moves.
3) I think this would have been an even worse move for the Allies. It exposes more of the British Empire to attack.
4) The Allies would have defeated the Russians, but it wouldn't have been easy. The Allies enjoyed a better air force, better navy, better production, better logistics, better communications and better soldiers. By better soldiers, I mean being allowed to think and take initiative more than their more rigid, orders-controlled Russian counterparts. As for logistics, the Russians were always launching "offensives". I think the word "offensive" in Russian means "refuel & rearm". :laugh4: When the tanks ran out of fuel, the offensive was over. Of course, I could be wrong. I'm going off memories of a research paper I did in high school nearly 30 years ago. ~:)
Arent you missing one little country or two in this equation? Lets start with the US maybe. No lendlease to Russia. Also we did have a bit of an Army , Navy , Airforce and Marines. Another country you seemed to dissmiss is Germany Herself. I really doubt Russia would have stood long against Britain, France Germany, Austrailia, Austria, Canada and the US just to name a few. Ill tell you this if not for Japan we may well have gone the otherway. Its hard to imagine a scenario where the US and Japan are on the same side back then. I also see no real reason to back Stalin over Hitler. If we were really serious about ending war we should have finished the job. Yes it would have cost millions of lifes but it would have saved and freed millions more.Quote:
This is a tough one. If Germany gets pulled in with the Allies against Russia, it could work for them but I think it may have more likely worked against Germany's favour. While the British/French would inflict casualties against the Russians, I doubt it would have been on the scale the Germans did in reality. Such a conflict would have probably ended in a stalemate - with Russia winning the land war but not being able to strike back at England or France. The battle would move to the Middle East and Asia - Russia vs the English colonies. Despite the casualties, it probably would have served to better prepare England, France and Russia against any future German moves.
Gawain, I didn't take my thought process out beyond '41 and where the US would jump in. And though I mentioned the possibility of Germany joining England/France against Russia, I really have a bit of a rough time figuring how Germany reacts to all this. I know Hitler was looking east eventually but 1939 doesn't seem like a good time to go for it. Germany was not expecting all out war when it invaded Poland and if England/France leave Germany alone to go after Russia, does Germany dive in, ready or not, or do they take advantage of good fortune and sit out for a little to prepare properly for the war they want (and let their future enemies bleed a little in the process)?
Of course you are right about the US, she tips the scale to whichever side she chooses.
Would the US have joined the Allies against Russia? Remember the isolationist stance was very prevelent and FDR was very lucky Hitler declared war on the US.
I assume you included America in with the Allies Gawain, but unless Russia did something to provoke America, im not certain that would happen.
I think Germany and the european allies could have done it themselves however. The real problem in the east as i have come to understand it was the crappy east european troops the Germans had to employ to guard their flanks - see Stalingrad.
With first class.. well sort of.. English and French troops to hold the line, all of the German troops would be availible for manuevers instead of constantly having to be called out of attackes to plug the holes of Hungarians or Romanians..
Also, i believe that Britain and France would have utilized German technology, so some of the Wonder Weapons could have been produced at a much faster pace.. such as the heavy tanks and assault rifles.
So either way - with or without the US - russia could have been defeated on her own.
Well for one thing Russia invaded Poland as well. They also invaded as many if not more countries than Germany did at the start of the war. Also didnt we fight the commies in the first world war? I dont think our government in reality was ever a great fan of communism or Russia under their rule. It was a matter of picking the lesser of two evils(on this I think they picked the greater of two evils to ally themselves with) but the one they saw as an immediate threat. Germany and France still had too much bad blood between them not to fight eachother it seems.Quote:
I assume you included America in with the Allies Gawain, but unless Russia did something to provoke America, im not certain that would happen.
Yes and this is what makes me laugh when people claim Russia could have beaten Germany alone. With the help of all the allies it still took them 6 years to win. The wonder to me is how did Germany last as long as it did with most of the Industrialzed world against it. One on one Mano on Mano its no contest.Quote:
So either way - with or without the US - russia could have been defeated on her own.
There's no way Hitler will expand in the East without use of force (especially with Stalin around). Secondly, they won't use that force unless France and GB are taken care of first. There is no way GB would have abandoned France.Quote:
Originally Posted by discovery1
With the non-aggression pact in place, Hitler was free to take care of the West first. Hitler simply kept pushing it and Poland was the breaking point for Western appeasement.
If Germany had attacked USSR first then GB and France would easily side with the Russians. There's the dreaded two front war. :charge:
Why?Quote:
If Germany had attacked USSR first then GB and France would easily side with the Russians
because it would look like germany would most likely win. and the british have always fought against anyone creating a hegemony in europe. and the french would have joined in to contain germany. at the time, one could argue that stalin was only trying to regain what had been russian territory for centuries before the russian civil war. but nazi germany was clearly expansionistic and the british and french would probably have decided to take them out before they got even stronger.
Well with us helping them wouldnt the Russians probaby win. In fact didnt they? I fail to see that as a better result.Quote:
because it would look like germany would most likely win
But not if its Russia?Quote:
the british have always fought against anyone creating a hegemony in europe
Werent the Germans claiming basicly the same thing? They were taking land and people back they had lost in previous wars? The soviets were equally expansionist.Quote:
at the time, one could argue that stalin was only trying to regain what had been russian territory for centuries before the russian civil war. but nazi germany was clearly expansionistic
Im afraid youll have to do better than that. The only point that sticks is the one I also made and thats that the French and Germans couldnt stand eachother. Funny how well they get along now isnt it?
I would dispute that. Britain has always fought against any nation threatening its hegemony of the seas and trade. Or any nation where its European expansion would innevitably threaten the state.Quote:
the british have always fought against anyone creating a hegemony in europe
Britain didn't go to land war against Napoleon's France until Napoleon blockaded the ports of Europe to trade with Britain.
Similarly in World War I, the main reason that Britain sided against the Germans was their naval expansionism. Germany was building a navy comparable to the Royal Navy with the obvious intention of siezing control of world trade.
The Suez Crisis is another great example.
The questions:
1 What if the allies had remained neutral after the invasion of Poland? Woud Germany have turned on Russia and if so what would be the result
They would have come across extremely cowardly after explicitly stating that Poland would be the last straw. Britain wouldn't have been able to tolerate this especially because the invasion of Poland restored Germany's control of its pre-WWI coast line giving them access to their old ship building territories. But since its a what-if to be humoured, Hitler probably would've consolidated for a few months and then launched an attack against France anyway, possibly after trying to get peace with Britain trading land for oil. Hitler needed the industrial regions in west Germany to be secure from attack, which with the modified borders from WWI and the new danger of air strikes would have been impossible. Without them he wouldn't have enough resources to pursue an invasion of anywhere. The delay would also have given the Germans time to assemble a more powerful navy and airforce than they actually had which would most likely have led to a succesful invasion of Britain.
2 What if the allies had declared war on Russia instead of Germany?
I assume America isn't being considered here. Britain, France and Germany would've won the war without a doubt. Even if Britain and France hadn't fired a bullet. The entire German airforce would have been available and the British could have supplied the Germans from the Middle East with all the oil they would need for a succesful invasion. If the British wanted to get involved to grab some land for themselves, they could've opened a second front by attacking the Soviet Union from the south from the Middle East or India. They could also have performed naval assaults too to open a third front.
At the end of the war, you'd have a big mess in Asia. It'd probably resemble colonial America by the end and when the Triple Alliance innevitably went to war (assuming no nukes) Russia could have tried to gain her independance, while the other nations battled each other into destruction.
3 What if the allies had declared war on both ?
Bad idea to go to war with two enemies who are at war with each other already. Better idea to secretly supply both sides so they destroy each other then go in and pick up the pieces.
4 What if the allies other than Russia of course had listened to Patton and attacked Russia after the defeat of Germany?
Then either the allies would have had to achieve a quick victory, which would have been unlikely given the length that their supply lines would become and the immense strain their infrastructure was already under or the American's would have had to used atomic bombs against Russia and central Europe. You'd then have had a huge power and geographic vacuum as these areas would be depopulated for generations to come. Britain and America would have been the two world superpowers once America had defeated Japan, as Britain would have been extremely unlikely to surrender much of their posessions without the game of pull and push being played on them by the US and the USSR.
In 1941, when the war started in ussr, stalin had been a very isolated leader indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Since the end of WWI, ussr had been kept alone by the democraties and the autoritarian regimes that had apeared in europe where extremely aggressive toward communism.
In fact, no one new, even roughly, what was behind ussr borders.
In the years that followed revolution, ussr attempted to extend itself, but when stalin came to power, this completly stopped.
The different national communist parties where directly under the kremlin's command, but this was not expansionism.
The nazis, on the other hand, where extremely active to expand themselves.
As the expansion of a country can only be made by war and that no one in europe wanted to see again the huge slaughter that had happened just a few years before, the democratic governements tried to contain german's menace through diplomacy.
In 1938 was signed a treaty that was supposed to maintain peace and that allowed germany to take a part of tchekoslovakia without making war.
But just a few months later, germany invaded what remained of this country.
In fact, it was simply not possible to maintain peace in europe with the nazis to power in germany, they where ready to take any option, including war, to satify their objectives and where to lead europe to another massacre in short or middle term.
On the opposite, soviet union was a political ennemy but was supposed to be unable to lead a military conquest.
So when hitler's armys invaded russia, no one betted upon the soviet soldiers and the only thing that was supposed to be within reach of the red army was to exhaust the krauts.
To give you an idea, the german military planners had estimated a campaign at most two month long and probably shorter.
No one knew that soviet union had became a giant weapon factory.
[QUOTE=But not if its Russia?
Werent the Germans claiming basicly the same thing? They were taking land and people back they had lost in previous wars? The soviets were equally expansionist.[/QUOTE]
No.
The german where claiming lands that they had lost during previous wars, that they had gain during previous wars and anything they could get in any circonstances.
They could not be trusted and nobody could hope making peace with them exepted by reducing them to mercy.
That's what the british government understood and that's why the british always refused german's peace propositions as they knew that this kind of peace would last only until the nazis thought war was a more interesting option.
The force primes the law was a nazi's rule and even if the soviets wheren't in any kind friends, at least they where not preparing a new european civil war.
[QUOTE=Im afraid youll have to do better than that. The only point that sticks is the one I also made and thats that the French and Germans couldnt stand eachother. Funny how well they get along now isnt it?[/QUOTE]
You shall visit the boneyard at verdun, where thousand bodys, both french and german, are burried.
They where so mutilated that even the remains of their uniforms did not allow to identify their nationality.
In fact, it was not even possible to count them and no one knows of many tens thousands of them remain here.
The souvenir of these apocalyptic slaughters where such that no one wanted to make war in france in 1939.
War became necessary when we realized that it was vital to stop the nazis as soon as possible and it had nothing to do with the franco-german antagonism that had an influence during word war I.
So, after the second european civil war of this century and a few dozen millions more deads, we tried to build something that would make impossible another war between our countries.
In 1939, there was no antagonism and today we have managed to free us from the bloodthirsty nationalist curse.
Very positive indeed i think.
You shal try to live in a country reduced to ashes and populated with widdows, orpheans and mutilated men before fiding this so funny.
You seem to have read a different version of history than I have. Didnt Russia invade as many if not more countries than Germany at the start of the war?Quote:
Default Re: 4 What ifs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Well with us helping them wouldnt the Russians probaby win. In fact didnt they? I fail to see that as a better result.
In 1941, when the war started in ussr, stalin had been a very isolated leader indeed.
Since the end of WWI, ussr had been kept alone by the democraties and the autoritarian regimes that had apeared in europe where extremely aggressive toward communism.
In fact, no one new, even roughly, what was behind ussr borders.
In the years that followed revolution, ussr attempted to extend itself, but when stalin came to power, this completly stopped.
The different national communist parties where directly under the kremlin's command, but this was not expansionism.
The nazis, on the other hand, where extremely active to expand themselves.
yeah but pretty much all the places they overran in late '30s to may' 41 had been part of russia until 1917. so from their viewpoint it could look like regaining their territory that had broken away or been pried away for only 15-20 years.
Oh so now 15 or 20 years is a short time and makes these things related ~:confused: Besides its not their viewpoint were speakng of is it. Hitler used the same excuse for his conquests. Also when was Poland or Finland a part of Russia ?Quote:
yeah but pretty much all the places they overran in late '30s to may' 41 had been part of russia until 1917. so from their viewpoint it could look like regaining their territory that had broken away or been pried away for only 15-20 years.
Finland and the better part of Poland belonged to czarist Russia prior to WWI.Quote:
Also when was Poland or Finland a part of Russia ?
When did the Poles start fighting the Russians again. I believe it was 1619 was it not? I mean we have heard here that a war isn't(that ones for you Lemur ~:) ) over until the tension between the waring factions are over have we not? In 1772 they removed Poland from the map. Then in 1815 they created the Polish congress under Russian rule. Finally in 1918 Poland once more was given nationhood status and in 1921 Russia once more attacked her. So according to the logic used on this debate Poland beat Russia even if it took a mere 400 years without the poles killing any russians to gain the final victory just as no Americans were killed at the time of our defeat.Quote:
Finland and the better part of Poland belonged to czarist Russia prior to WWI.
To understand the logic of the decisions that where made in these times, you must try to imagine what the men that took the decisions knew and what they could predict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Russia had not known any military victory against a western power since the napoleonic era.
In 1905, they where humiliated by a country that was not even seen as a power, japan.
In 1914, defeats succeded to defeats and the army shatered before the regime.
During the 1920's, civil wars, famins, massacres and dictature still weakened this country.
During the 1930's, the purges, even if they where not known in detail showed a regime that appeared as weak and torn between factions.
The military purges of the late 1930's had weakened an army that was already very poorly estimated.
Moreover, ussr was a very closed country and beeing very under developped at the start of the century, no one could think that it had became a major industial power in the 1930's.
So yes, ussr was an ennemy and it had been such since the october revolution.
The allied planned an operation to help finland, originaly the operation in norway was supposed to reach northern finland to help the fins against the soviets.
This operation did not happened due to the quick defeat of ussr.
But soviet union was not seen as a danger, at most a country that could launch a war and was to be soon beaten, the soviets simply didn't have a chance against european armys.
Now if you look at germany, things where completely different.
It was a major industrial power, it had very firm military traditions, one of the best armys in the word, political power was extremely strong etc ...
Twenty years before a coalition of france, great britain, america, italy was necessary to force germany to surrender after a four years nightmare that costed millions of lives.
Moreover as we have seen it in poland, central and eastern european countrys where not easily within reach of france and great britain, at least without the support of russia or germany.
The only thing the democratic powers could do was to fight a war by helping countrys such as finland with weapons, specialists etc ... but a war against russia while germany was aggresive was simply not possible.
Just imagine what happens if the Mexicans recall what their borders prior to 1830s were.Quote:
Originally Posted by discovery1
Arent we hearing this same sort of thing from radical Muslims ? They want Spain back and many other lands they once conquered.Quote:
Just imagine what happens if the Mexicans recall what their borders prior to 1830s were.
Roger that.
I was just answering some comments that the Soviet agression 1939-40 on Poland, Finland, etc. was not an agression since these territories happened to be part of Russia prior to 1917.
In my book, it was just an unprovoked and unjustified landgrab.
How do you see that Poland beat Russia?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
During the 400 years mentioned by you, Poland (regarding the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of 1600s as "Poland") lost like 80% of its territory to Russia and the nation was decapitated.
The Kingdom of Poland, the Commonwealth of Both Nations is not there anymore and will never be, while Russia is there, as imperial and power hungry as ever.
The same way people in the backroom see the US losing the Vietnam war.Russias aim was to take over all of Poland and they succeeded for a time but in the end they failed and Poland is once more a nation just as we failed to stop the North from taking the south and are blamed for it even though we had already left. Itseems to me that these two countries never lost their aggression towards eachother throughout that whole 400 year period. Sorry to drag backroom material into this place. But go check t out if you like.Quote:
How do you see that Poland beat Russia?
During the 400 years mentioned by you, Poland (regarding the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth of 1600s as "Poland") lost like 80% of its territory to Russia and the nation was decapitated.
The Kingdom of Poland, the Commonwealth of Both Nations is not there anymore and will never be, while Russia is there, as imperial and power hungry as ever.
I agree, but must correct some mistakes ( I am such a person ~;) )Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
1. The war started around 1490 and lasted ( only cease-fire from time to time) to 1634 ( Smolensk re-gained by Poland).
Another one broke out in 1654 and lasted to 1667 (Polish defeat, Kiev and Smolensk to Russia).
Other wars were fought in 1768-70 ( Bar Confederacy), in 1792, 1794 and 1812 ( 100 000 Poles in Napoleon armies, they enter Moscow almost exactly 200 years later after the first 'visit' in 1610-12), 1830-31, 1863-64, 1919-20 and 1939-45.
2. It was the first partition, the last one was in 1795.
3. It was to 'reward' Russia, but didn't lasted for long.
4. The war started in 1919, Poland attacked to create several independent, allied states ( Belorussia, Ukraine, Lithuania), but ultimately was too weak to achieve it. Nonetheless it was the first defeat of the Red Army and saved Europe some serious troubles ( Russia would attack anyway).
5. I agree, they have borders from Ivan the Terrible's times ~D
I am not anti-Russian, but I preferr to have Russia several houndreds kilometers away. ~;)
In my book, it was just an unprovoked and unjustified landgrab.[/QUOTE]
What is this book ? Maybe I could read it.
During my time here ( the UK) I have discovered that almost every book with some data about Poland is biased or wrong many times - sometimes these are worth less than fairy tales (at lest these are intentionally not real) :book:
My favourite WWII "What if?" is to do with Britain. What if the UK had chosen to be neutral in WWII? It's certainly not that radical a suggestion. Hitler was far from unpopular in the mid to late 30s on both sides of the Atlantic. What if the British had decided that Hitler could be a tool to get rid of the greater menace, the Soviet Union? Then how do things stand? It opens up a number of interesting possibilities.
The defeat of Russia is now almost a certainty. Europe is pretty much left with a dominant Germany. The fun comes in the Pacific. The US had been badgering Japan for a while. What happens now though? With Britain neutral and nominally in the Germans camp, the US strategic position looks bleak indeed. Even with rapid militarization, could the US fight off the Japanese and Germans, while having to consider the possibility of the British becoming hostile? Or would be forced to climb down from its antagonistic Japanese policies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morat
That an easy one I guess. The alliance between Japan and Germany was not very close. 1st it was against ths USSR. 2nd every side hoped that this alliance would prevent an attack of the US. Hitler would not have done anything to help the Japanese. He might even helped the British to protect their colonies. One reason that he didn't want to invade the UK was that he didn't want that the Japonese get their colonies.
Here is another one:
What if Stalin had acted different at the end of WW2? If he didn't allow to kill German civilists and to rape German women. If he didn't take industrial equipment and shipped it to the USSR. If he helped Germany's build up? If he didn't send millions of POW to Sibiria for many years, were many died from hunger cold and work? What if he sent them to Crimea, giving them lots of food, showing them the crimes that Germans did in the USSR and teaching them communism? Them releasing them into the German towns that were completely destroyed by British and US bombers? If he didn't want to devide Germany?
I guess Germany would have become a communist country as well. That might have had big impact on Italy and France too, were communism was always strong. With these three countries the industrial power of the communist countries would have been much bigger than from the capitalistic ones. Or maybe the US would have attacked Germany when they saw that they were becoming communist?
How would the world look like today if Stalin would have chosen to go this way?
What if the relation of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational one was just 1% different?Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
This, I'm rather surprised it hasn't surfaced, was indeed one of Churchill's plans (dubbed operation unthinkable, I think). A quick 'blitzkrieg' operation to get the USSR to its knees. As you should all know, this was a silly notion. First and foremost due to the withdrawing of US troops from Europe at the time, secondly due to Churchill not being elected (;)).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Though I think even if an assault had been launched, it would not have been able to dent soviets much. They, at the time had an army of some 10 million soldiers and had a yearly tank production of around 40,000 a year (if memory serves). Combine this with the population's willingness to fight ('patriotic war') of the time, which could have been easily switched to the NEXT agressor, I think the russians would have steamrolled the Allies.
Due to air and naval power difficulties, this advance may have been made harder, but as far as ground equipment is concerned, I fear the USSR had the absolute advantage. It would probably end in an armistice that would have jumpstarted the Cold War, or they would continue fighting until the USA had enough bombs to thorougly nuke the USSR. Either way, it would have been a costly enterprise that I think would not have toppled Stalin's regime. At the time, such a total victory was unthinkable for the Allies. Hence the operation's name I suppose :P
The Russians couldnt even have beaten Germany alone by itself. All the allies against them would have crushed them. Might have taken another 4 or 5 years though and then there was also the problem that Japan was still fighting at this time.
Do not forget that the Soviet army in 1945 was not comparable to the Soviet army in 1941! They had a giant production (not only tanks, also planes). Their army was completly mobile. They had a very good organisation, logistics, experienced generals and soldiers. They had learned a lot about tactics and strategy. They had gernerals that didn't mind heavy losses (unlike the western allies) and soldiers that were willing to die for the country and for Stalin.
Even though the US and GB were famous for their strategic air war, I think the Russian were stronger - though they were focused on tactical air war only. The Germans had lost more planes in the Eastern than in the Western theatre!!
My main argument is still that there would have been millions of vicims. Nobody can decide to start a war that will cause millions of victims. Even if the reasons are noble, in the end your are nothing but a mass murderer. Was anybody really willing to bomb Russian cities with nuke to liberate them from communism? :furious3:
They were willing to fight and likely die because they knew that if they didn't then they would definately die by their own officers' or forced recruiters' hands. The Soviet military dealt ruthlessly with 'unpatriotric deserters from the greater cause.' Although the Soviet propaganda machine wisely kept its troops informed of German attrocities against Soviet prisonners of war and civilians, which would have strengthened the soldiers' resolve.Quote:
and soldiers that were willing to die for the country and for Stalin.
Had the western powers attacked the Soviet Union after the surrender of Germany, I doubt they would have pushed the Soviets further back than the German border with Poland before having to push for peace or use the nuclear option. While this would have liberated East Germany and avoided some of the more dangerous exchanges over Berlin it would have given the Cold War much more potential to boil over as there would be many soldiers and officers on both sides who would have seen men die at the other sides hands. A few twitchy trigger fingers and the Cold War could have got very hot indeed with nuclear weapons.
No, although the Western powers probably would have done so under that justification while the actual reason was to reduce the superior production capacity of the Soviet Union. Prior to the Cuban Missile Crisis there was quite a strong opinion in the American military and even in the Cabinet that a pre-emptive strike against the Soviet Union was in their best interest because the Soviets didn't have a sufficient quality of suitable delivery systems to perform an effective counter strike against America by that point. It probably would've been justified as liberating the Russian people from Communism (by killing them). Sort of like the current administration justifies eroding the freedoms inherent in western democracies in the name of preserving those very freedoms.Quote:
Was anybody really willing to bomb Russian cities with nuke to liberate them from communism?
That is right. But do not underestimate their will do fight and suffer for their country. They had seen what the Germans did after they had attackes the USSR without a cause. Look at the Partisans that were fighting against the Germans outside the area that was controlled by the Kremlin. Do not forget the influence of propaganda. If the west would have attacked there would have been millions who would have given their lifes to save Russia against the invators. Even those who hated communism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
That makes me shiver! ~:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franconicus
He he.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
I'm not sure how far the Soviet propaganda would have worked against the western powers though. While it was effective against the Nazis in World War II, this was because the Nazis were committing attrocities against Soviet prisonners of war and civilians, effectively galvanising the Russian people in resistance against them. Whether they would have been so willing to oppose the western powers who might have used the carrot rather than the stick is not so certain. The Soviets had committed quite a few attrocities against their own people as well and there were large organised groups in the territories that had come under Soviet control that were ready to continue the war they had been waging against the Communists after the Nazis (the Lienez (sp.) Cossacks).
It would probably depend on whether the west decided to re-arm the German army. If they had done so, then the people in the Eastern Bloc would have probably fought fiercely against the west because they would be seen to be sympathising with their former abusers.
Sorry but I have a different opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
The Germans invade and destroy everthing. Then the nations stands together and drives them back. Then the US/GB invade. Easy to explain the people that this is the new enemy. Easy to tell them that they are doing the same crimes the Germans did.
This is an interesting link to Russians teling their story about WW2:
http://www.iremember.ru/index_e.htm
And remember that the Germans fought until the very end. They didn't want to surrender to an enemy that destroys the towns and kills hundred thousands of civilists.
The military forces in presence in europe were, for the democracys, heavily dependant on logistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
Europe was reduced to ashes from east to west, but i think the soviet lines of supply were reliable, at least up to the east borders of germany.
The resistance movements in the east had been harshly repressed by the nazis during five years and the grasp of stalin upon civilian populations was very hard.
On the other hand, in the west, most of the resistance organizations were communists, the prestige of soviet union and stalin were huge and neither great britain nor the us had a political oppressive system at hand.
So, i think if a clash between the democracys and soviet union had happened in 1945, the west armys would have had very quickly unafordable supply problems and would have found themselves if not totaly paralysed, at least unable to lead an effective offensive against the red army.
The red army itself could afford a heavy assault against the west within a short time.
Germany could not have been of much help in 1945 for the west, as the citys, the transports wether by rail, road or river were completely destroyed, the country was exhausted, completely disorganized, the german army was but the shadow of what it had been, the population was almost starving etc ...
In a country such as france, the army was mainly constituted by volunters that had joined immediatly after the liberation and came for the biggest part from communist organizations and this concerened officers as well as soldiers.
In italy, the communist parti was the main political force as well as in other different countrys.
So, this does not mean their would have been a communist revolution in case of war between east and west, but the conjunction of a soviet offensive with massive strikes/sabotage and rebelious troops would have been deadly for the western forces and would very probably have caused a catastroph leading to the expansion of soviet union all over the continent.