Germany or Russia?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Damn I wish I could figure out how to make a poll here.

Anyway two questions. If instead of attacking Poland Germany and Russia had attacked eachother either then or later on when the actually did

A Who would have won?

B Who would you have wanted to win?

I ll throw in a
C And why?

This may turn out to be backroom stuff

[caesar44]

How they could attacked each other if they had Poland in the middle ?

[Duke Malcolm]

Trying to make sense of your unique style of typing is quite a challenge, Gawain...

A... I think that it would have been a prolonged harsh war, which Germany would have lost.

B... I would have wanted Germany to win

C... to A, for the same reason they lost in WW2, because of their inability to cope with the winter. to B, because Communists are evil and want to take away my (parents') well-earned money

[Kagemusha]

Very hard question Gawain.In this hypothetical scenario you mean that it would have been one vs. one.Or would have Russia invaded Finland too.I asked that only because in order to make mind on whos side i would have taken i need to know how biased my opinion would be.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It would be one on one. If they both had to invade Poland in order to fightt or any other small nations got involved lets assume the major allied powers stayed out of it.

One of my points is I dont believe the people of the US thought any better of Russia then they did of Germany before the war started. In fact Id say they liked the Germans far better.If in 1936 you had asked most americans if war broke out between these two nations who would you favor I think Germany wins hands down.

Il throw in another question.

If you were an average citizen which system would you choose to live under,Hitlers Germany or Stalins Russia?

[caesar44]

Why ? why ? why ?
On second thought - in the winning side...

[Kagemusha]

Ok.One vs. One I think that in 1939 Germany could have crushed the Soviet army,but i dont think they could have occupied whole of the Soviet Union.My personal wish for the outcome would have been that they would have exhausted eachother and fought to an standstill.I believe that the outcome would have been a negotiated peace, because French and British would have attacked Germany on her back if it would have seemed that The Soviet Union would have collapsed.

[Kagemusha]

Il throw in another question.

If you were an average citizen which system would you choose to live under,Hitlers Germany or Stalins Russia?

Gawain you have some tough questions today.I wouldnt have liked either system.That is just a terrible question.

[Geoffrey S]

Both systems had deep moral issues when it came to politics and ethnicity, but if it boiled down to standard of living I would have to choose Germany. As to who would have won, Germany would certainly have had a fighting chance if they weren't engaged on two fronts as was actually the case, but whether they'd have held Russia for any period is doubtful.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Ok.One vs. One I think that in 1939 Germany could have crushed the Soviet army,but i dont think they could have occupied whole of the Soviet Union.My personal wish for the outcome would have been that they would have exhausted eachother and fought to an standstill.I believe that the outcome would have been a negotiated peace, because French and British would have attacked Germany on her back if it would have seemed that The Soviet Union would have collapsed.

In reality isnt this pretty much what happened? Basicly we didnt like either side so we suppilied the Ruskies with weapons to make it more even so that they would destroy eachother. When it was clear Russia would win we stepped in to stop them from taking over more terrirtory. The only difference is without the allies Russia would have suffered a lot more and I think the Germans would have occupied the whole place and that Japan would have carved up a slice of Russia for herself as well.

Gawain you have some tough questions today.I wouldnt have liked either system.That is just a terrible question.

I have no problem choosing being a blond haired blue eyed man.

I have no doubt that the average German was far better off than the average Russian in 1932 or that matter anytime in history But I do believe Stalin was worse than Hitler. The only reason we went with Russia is Germany was closer ..

[Kagemusha]

I have no problem choosing being a blond haired blue eyed man.

But i am blond haired man,(Ok.I have green eyes). But to chooce from those to be a slave of the Government in Russia or to wait what would be the next grazy thing that Hitler would come up for Nations self destruction.I would choose to be a German also but i would do anything to get that psycho Hitler of power.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Point A -- Early

Germany and the Soviets attack each other over a dying Poland, Fall 1939.

Probable Result: Soviet victory with conquest up to, but likely not beyond, the Elbe before their offensive capabilities were blunted.

Russia would have struck only after Germany had suffered significant casualties in Poland (which is when they did attack Poland). Germany's Panzercorps were not the scalpel they were 6 months or a year later and her economy was poorly geared for war. Soviet casualties would have been vastly higher than Germany's, but they had 20,000 tanks to the German 1800 AND Germany had no Panzer 3's or 4's. The German Air Force would have obtained air superiority and held it. This, combined with a rush to arms in Germany would have halted the Soviets prior to complete victory.

Point A -- 1941/42

Germany Attacks Russia (June 1941).

Germany should have won. Hitler stopped the Panzers from pursuing a strike on the Moscow plateau. With 18% of Soviet Industry concentrated in Moscow, this was strategically stupid. The tactical successes in the Ukraine and the North were not a worthwile trade. Read "Panzers East" -- they really DID have the ability to break Russia before the Siberian troops came West.

Russia attacks Rumania and Germany Intervenes (Spring 1942)

Part of the reason Germany did so well in '41 is that the Russians were building up for a strike into the Balkans and had too much of their Air Force and Armor too far forward and too far South for propoer defense. Had Russia launched its strike, Germany's counter might have been even more effective than the original assault, but would have had to contend with an unsurprised and more coordinated Soviet Army. Probably a modified repeat of what actually happened would have ensued.

Point B:

Neither. Both regimes were evil in a way that few have ever achieved. Even the Opium wars and the horrors of the Belgian Congo weren't quite this bad. The Turks never got close to the scale of either of these monsters with their efforts against the Armenians and the Chaldeans. Hitler and Stalin represent humanity at its worst.


Point C:

I'd have been even happier if we had invaded the Balkans and Scandinavia in the Fall of '44 (while preparing a rescue force to land in France upon the collapse of Germany. These incursions would have sapped Germany's strength less slowly, allowing more Russian and German casualties. Strategically, we would have done better if they bled each other even more.

SF

[Meneldil]

But I do believe Stalin was worse than Hitler

How so ?

A - In 1939, the Germans weren't on top yet, but the Russians sucked quite badly. Just as during Barbarossa, they would have get hammered first, but the Germans would have lost to winter, or would have been outnumbered, since Stalin would have sent every single russian to death to win the war.

B - The Russians, because Hitler would have killed every single russian after his victory and would have USSR in a giant extermination camp.

C - See above.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How so ?

He killed far more of his own and other people than Hitler did.

[Meneldil]

He killed far more of his own and other people than Hitler did.

I disagree. If we go that way, Hitler killed *at least* 60 millions of people, including ~20 millions of russians, ~7 millions of germans, ~7 millions of poles, and so on.
He invented extermination camps, decided to kill millions of innoncent people because of their religious beliefs, of their so called races.

Stalin *might* have killed 60 millions of people (very unlikely), including a lot of innocent sent to the Gulags, but he never created a whole industry system whose aim was to turn human beings into soaps.
Don't turn your hate of socialism and communism into a mere revisionism of history.

[King Henry V]

A
I think that Russia would have won the war eventually, but I think that it would have been so exhausted that the Cold War might not have happened. Germany would probably have reached Moscow, but it is doubtful that it would have held on the end.Russia was simply too huge for anyone except the Russians to rule.
B
Being half German and having several relatives who had served on the Easter Front, I am biased towards Germany. I do regard both regimes to be as horrendous as the other. With the Communists anybody could be targeted, but no specific ethnic group. With the Nazi regime, if one wasn't belonging to any of the targeted groups one was relatively safe.

[Kraxis]

In 1939 Germany could not have taken the Soviet Union on. Their entire army was just below 2 million in all, far too little to be able to overpower the SU. They would have won spectacular victories as the Russians simply hadn't learned the tough lessons of Finland, and they were even close to the purges in time. So tactically it would have been a massacre, but getting beyond a very large bulge in Soviet territory would have been impossible. So it would have been a limited war perhaps. But perhaps both would have tried a buildup in a very problematic state.
Since Germany was nowhere as far in as in late 41 the SU would have more industrial power to dish out destruction. Meanwhile Germany was far weaker in military matter (and it wasn't as if her industry was ready for major military contracts at the time).

If we have a case of 41, where the Soviet Union didn't get the allied supplies, then you can be certain that Moscow would have been taken. And with it the absolute rail hub in western Russia. There would be close to no traffic north/south anymore.
Meanwhile the SU wouldn't be able to arm new divisions as fast, and in December 41 the pre-war stocks of ammunition had quite simply run out. And with no Allied help there, there would be far too little ammo for the troops for a long while.
Further, it is likely that the Mongolian divisions would have been deployed to the west earlier, and possibly ended up as the rest.

It would not have been a pretty sight.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Hitler versus Stalin:

Both are the dregs of humanity, existing solely for power and having nothing of what we would call decency.

Gulags v. Final Solution:

Stalin sent millions to the gulags on the slightest -- or no -- provocation. An estimated 30 million never returned from these gulags, starved when the farms were forcibly collectivized or were killed outright in purges and disappearances. No accurate count can be made, since records were not kept of many of the latter. This occurred throughout the Stalin era over a period of more than 20 years.

Hitler killed between 14 and 16 million in his "final solution" to the Jews, Gypsies, Queers, etc. This number probably exceeds 20 million if Russian POWs and others who were worked to death are counted. Hitler managed this total in less than 12 years, so his average was higher.

These numbers EXCLUDE the dead resulting from wars of agression launched by both nations. Many moralists would include those as well and the numbers become staggering.

To argue who was worse is to compare turds -- the essential subject matter has not changed.



Murmansk:

Western supplies did not have a decisive effect on the '41 campaign. Though convoys began by August of 1941, serious tonnage did not arrive until 1942. The soviets rebuilt faster because of these supplies, but they themselves -- and Hitler's military ineptitude -- saved them in 1941.

Though the russians did love the thousands of trucks we sent, and were partial to the Ma Deuce (who wasn't!), they preferred Soviet equipment for almost everything else.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

The Estimated Death toll of Stalin's cruelty was 54 million, not 30. And he was worse.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Estimated Death toll of Stalin's cruelty was 54 million, not 30.

It's been a while since I read particulars on this. I defer to you here.

And he was worse.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Either would have done the world a signal service by geting killed during WW1. To say that Dhaugazvili was worse because his 54 million innocents slaughtered to assuage his paranoia are more numerous than Hitler's 25 million butchered to serve some false racist utopia is inane. Both of them were/are minions of evil and utterly despicable.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Both of them were/are minions of evil and utterly despicable.

And Saddam and Arafat?

[Kraxis]

Ok, when talking about the two evils, you guys talk about how Hitler was following a deranged ideal, and Stalin was a ruthless and paranoid despot. That is true. I'm not going to contend it.

But then people argue that Stalin killed more, that is true as well. But that is the case of the SU winning. Can you even imagine how many Russians would have died in German camps or from starvation if they had won? It would have been absolutely horrible. And I would say that numbers would have been as high if not higher than the 54 million mentioned.
It was part of the plan that the east would have been depopulated to a great extent (and couldn't have the rump SU getting a lot of displaced and angry people). The Germans would need the lower population figures to easier control the country, also this way it could have been repopulated by Germans (the good old plan of many children, remember?).

So to use the figures as a sort of proof, is simply faulty as we don't know how many Hitler would have killed withhis regime had he won. We only know that he managed pretty well in what areas he did have. If that is extended to the Urals it becomes very disgusting to think about.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But that is the case of the SU winning.

Again I believe he killed more Russians than Germans.

[Red Harvest]

Timing is the most important factor. Had Hitler not needed to be concerned about the West, he would have finished off the Russians, but not in '39.

I still see Hitler's big strategic mistake as in not finishing off Britain first. Had he done so he would have eliminated the Western threats for the time being. Being able to shift more resources East, and perhaps not needing to worry about lend-lease, he would have overrun the entire Eastern half of Russia. He would have added a substantial part of the industrial output of at least two large nations to his efforts against the Russians.

Wouldn't want either of them to win. They were both monsters and both of their systems were a setback to the modern world. Fortunately, they went to war with one another.

[cegorach]

My answer:

Assuming that the war was started in 1939. The Red Army would reach as far as Odra/Oder, because it was several times bigger, because the Germans would need to cover its western border as well, because the suffered serious casaulities in Poland ( 1000 tanks and armoured cars - about 300 were destroyed completely, 300 airplanes and 50% of bombs for Luftwaffe) and because they had too many rubbish tanks ( PZ I and II still dominated) and ineffective units ( so-called light divisions were disbanded after 1939, many more ideas were re-thought).

Still Red Army suffered high losses after 17th September ( almost 500 tanks were lost - 50 permanently to Polish forces of less than 2 weak divisions) and it was before the Finnish war, so their capabilities were not sufficient to advance too far.

Regards Cegorach

P.S. Don't blame Hitler for all killed during the 2nd WW - the war was started by the Third Reich TOGETHER with the SU, so the losses cannot be credited to this bad painter.

[Samurai Waki]

both were terrible people. Hitler killed millions out of paranoia, and systematically. Stalin killed millions without prejudice, but his life, and growing up were quite different from Hitler, his father made him a Tyrant.... Hitler became a Tyrant. I'd say Hitler was the worse of the two evils. I can't imagine how a cold war scenario between the US and Allies vs the 3rd Reich would've turned out. My guess would be nuclear holocaust.

[caesar44]

The USSR ruled Eastern Europe for 45 years - poverty , distress , political persecutions , tyranny , no freedom etc' but they lived where they were .
Now imagine Nazi Germany to rule Eastern Europe - genocide !!! deportations , experiments on humans - pure evil

Give Roosevelt a little credit...he fought Nazi Germany without provocation , why ? he was anti communist and he helped them , why ?
he saw the danger of a Satanic regime in Europe and the hell with Communism-Capitalism conflict .
Between pure evil and a cruel opponent , I (as Roosevelt did) choose the second .

[cegorach]

The USSR ruled Eastern Europe for 45 years - poverty , distress , political persecutions , tyranny , no freedom etc' but they lived where they were .
Now imagine Nazi Germany to rule Eastern Europe - genocide !!! deportations , experiments on humans - pure evil

Give Roosevelt a little credit...he fought Nazi Germany without provocation , why ? he was anti communist and he helped them , why ?
he saw the danger of a Satanic regime in Europe and the hell with Communism-Capitalism conflict .
Between pure evil and a cruel opponent , I (as Roosevelt did) choose the second .

Both were evil. Both used extermination and other means you have mentioned, both should never appear...

And about living in eastern Europe under Stalin - are you serious - do you know about Moldavia, Poland, Baltic States, Chechenya, Ukraine etc ???

[Advo-san]

I would like to add my slightly differented opinion. Please do not think of me as a neo-nazi or a stalin-lover, for I am neither:

A Brief Debate on the Nature of Evil

1) Were Stalin and Hitler humen? Or were they simply an incarnation of Evil? Most people like to consider these two fellas as a deviation of the human nature, meaning not humen, but something else, an evil unique and without precedent in human history.
Truely, Stalin ordered more deaths than any other individual EVER and Hitler commited his killing in the most proffessoinal, calculated way (the guy used logistic services, for God's sake, for his death camps...). But, in murder, size doesn't, or shouldn't matter.Ordering the death of 1 is as despicable as ordering the death of 1 million, cause the value of human life cannot be measured.

2)They were both humen.Neither they were paranoid nor crazy, nor jumped out of a pitt from hell, nor were beaten by their mothers or fathers in order to devevlop into monsters. If we deny them their "humanity", if we put them in the side of human history, we will be commiting a terrible mistake. We will be unable to explain WHY they commited their crimes. Hitler was the sub-product of a great but humiliated nation that was kicked around like a pile of s**** and Stalin was the sub-product of a system that was struggling to survive while beaten from all sides. In historical comparison terms, Stalin reminds me of the Mameluks and Hitler of the Boxers. Same pattern.

3)My conclusion is this: History is not created by monsters, it is created by people. And as my great ancestor Thoukidides wrote "men change but what motivates men remains the same" (the peloponessian war)

[caesar44]

I would like to add my slightly differented opinion. Please do not think of me as a neo-nazi or a stalin-lover, for I am neither:

A Brief Debate on the Nature of Evil

1) Were Stalin and Hitler humen? Or were they simply an incarnation of Evil? Most people like to consider these two fellas as a deviation of the human nature, meaning not humen, but something else, an evil unique and without precedent in human history.
Truely, Stalin ordered more deaths than any other individual EVER and Hitler commited his killing in the most proffessoinal, calculated way (the guy used logistic services, for God's sake, for his death camps...). But, in murder, size doesn't, or shouldn't matter.Ordering the death of 1 is as despicable as ordering the death of 1 million, cause the value of human life cannot be measured.

2)They were both humen.Neither they were paranoid nor crazy, nor jumped out of a pitt from hell, nor were beaten by their mothers or fathers in order to devevlop into monsters. If we deny them their "humanity", if we put them in the side of human history, we will be commiting a terrible mistake. We will be unable to explain WHY they commited their crimes. Hitler was the sub-product of a great but humiliated nation that was kicked around like a pile of s**** and Stalin was the sub-product of a system that was struggling to survive while beaten from all sides. In historical comparison terms, Stalin reminds me of the Mameluks and Hitler of the Boxers. Same pattern.

3)My conclusion is this: History is not created by monsters, it is created by people. And as my great ancestor Thoukidides wrote "men change but what motivates men remains the same" (the peloponessian war)

Your great ancestor Thoukidides...aha
Your argument is good (heard it before and I agree with it) .