4 What ifs

[Browning]

Finland and the better part of Poland belonged to czarist Russia prior to WWI.

Just imagine what happens if the Mexicans recall what their borders prior to 1830s were.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Just imagine what happens if the Mexicans recall what their borders prior to 1830s were.

Arent we hearing this same sort of thing from radical Muslims ? They want Spain back and many other lands they once conquered.

[Browning]

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.

[Browning]

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.

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

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.

[cegorach]

1.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?

2.In 1772 they removed Poland from the map.

3.Then in 1815 they created the Polish congress under Russian rule.

4.Finally in 1918 Poland once more was given nationhood status and in 1921 Russia once more attacked her.

5.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.

I agree, but must correct some mistakes ( I am such a person )

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

I am not anti-Russian, but I preferr to have Russia several houndreds kilometers away.

[cegorach]

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)

[Morat]

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?

[Franconicus]

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?

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.

[Franconicus]

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?

[Browning]

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?

[Eldin]

4 What if the allies other than Russia of course had listened to Patton and attacked Russia after the defeat of Germany?

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 (;)).

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

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

[Franconicus]

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?

[Al Khalifah]

and soldiers that were willing to die for the country and for Stalin.

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.

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.

Was anybody really willing to bomb Russian cities with nuke to liberate them from communism?

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.

[Franconicus]

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.

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.

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.

That makes me shiver!

[Al Khalifah]

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.

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.

He he.

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.

[Franconicus]

He he.

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.

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.

[Petrus]

He he.

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.

The military forces in presence in europe were, for the democracys, heavily dependant on logistics.

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.