F
Frank Sinatra
Guest
If Hitler and the Soviet Union had remained allies throughout the Second World War do you think the final outcome would have been different?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
G
gbulldogs88
Guest
yes i do think things would have been different. we might have been bombed. england would have been bombed into submission with the v-1 v-2 and the v-3 rockets that were in development when the war ended
A
Agility Man
Guest
The fundamental assumption of your question (Germany and Russia remaining allies) is impossible--it truly is.
First, Stalin admitted that the alliance was only temporary and he expected Hitler to invade. He just didn't think it would be so soon. Furthermore, the Russia paranoia with their borders--they would have felt threatened with Nazi client states (Hungary, Bulgaria) on their borders with no buffer other than part of Poland.
Second, Hitler railed against the Eastern mongrels in particular. The German communists were among the first people rounded up and sent to prison or in some cases camps. Other than both being brutal dictatorships, Germany and Russia were the philosophical opposites of each other, distrusting each other and expecting war to come at some point.
Third, I don't think the outcome would have been different. The only way it's different (given realistic assumptions) is if Goering continues to pound the RAF fields (rather than switching to the cities) so Operation Sea Lion (invasion of Britain) can happen. And "IF" Britain falls (and I don't think that's a certainty), the war in Europe is different because I don't see us invading Europe from across the Atlantic.
However, if Hitler doesn't invade Russia, they don't improve militarily. Stalin purged his best officers. The first year of their war with Germany, the Russian army took a pounding, millions of POWs. Only through a desperate trial by fire did better officers emerge, troops learned on the battlefield, the Russians discovered how critical it was to update their air and armor. Absent the German invasion, I think Russia's army doesn't improve--it is still the paper tiger that was manhandled by a much smaller Finnish force (and won only by vastly superior numbers).
The war in the Pacific still happens and still plays out the same way (only more so because if we're not sending as many resources to Europe than they're in the Pacific). We still invent the Atomic bomb (the Germans weren't even close). We still use it against the Japanese. And then we'd have it to use against the Germans. So the details of the ending and the end game differ but the result is still the same.
I agree that the German army was bled white on the Eastern Front so the premise of a Russia-Germany alliance is initially intriguing. But it (long-term) was impossible. The two sides had nothing in common, no long-term reasons for alliance, distrusted each other badly, had reasons for fighting each other and it was only a matter of when, not if
First, Stalin admitted that the alliance was only temporary and he expected Hitler to invade. He just didn't think it would be so soon. Furthermore, the Russia paranoia with their borders--they would have felt threatened with Nazi client states (Hungary, Bulgaria) on their borders with no buffer other than part of Poland.
Second, Hitler railed against the Eastern mongrels in particular. The German communists were among the first people rounded up and sent to prison or in some cases camps. Other than both being brutal dictatorships, Germany and Russia were the philosophical opposites of each other, distrusting each other and expecting war to come at some point.
Third, I don't think the outcome would have been different. The only way it's different (given realistic assumptions) is if Goering continues to pound the RAF fields (rather than switching to the cities) so Operation Sea Lion (invasion of Britain) can happen. And "IF" Britain falls (and I don't think that's a certainty), the war in Europe is different because I don't see us invading Europe from across the Atlantic.
However, if Hitler doesn't invade Russia, they don't improve militarily. Stalin purged his best officers. The first year of their war with Germany, the Russian army took a pounding, millions of POWs. Only through a desperate trial by fire did better officers emerge, troops learned on the battlefield, the Russians discovered how critical it was to update their air and armor. Absent the German invasion, I think Russia's army doesn't improve--it is still the paper tiger that was manhandled by a much smaller Finnish force (and won only by vastly superior numbers).
The war in the Pacific still happens and still plays out the same way (only more so because if we're not sending as many resources to Europe than they're in the Pacific). We still invent the Atomic bomb (the Germans weren't even close). We still use it against the Japanese. And then we'd have it to use against the Germans. So the details of the ending and the end game differ but the result is still the same.
I agree that the German army was bled white on the Eastern Front so the premise of a Russia-Germany alliance is initially intriguing. But it (long-term) was impossible. The two sides had nothing in common, no long-term reasons for alliance, distrusted each other badly, had reasons for fighting each other and it was only a matter of when, not if
V
very important pig club
Guest
yes, b/c when the Allies won then Russia would not have had any bargaining power and wouldn't have gotten so much of eastern Europe.
But no, not if you meant would Germany have won the war. I don't think that would have happened.
But no, not if you meant would Germany have won the war. I don't think that would have happened.
B
Bad Company
Guest
Yes, but the victors would still be the same. If they hadn't been fighting the Eastern Front they would have been much stronger, and could have held Africa as well as possibly get a foothold in Britain. But, the US developed the atomic bomb for Germany They surrendered before it was finished. Without the Eastern Front I do not doubt they would have still been fighting when it was ready to deploy. Then history may have mourned Dresden not Hiroshima.
M
madison m
Guest
Yes, defiantly if Hitler didn't attack the Soviets, things would have been very different, Soviets with more men, more powerful tanks, and landmass, we would all be speaking German right now.
P
P L
Guest
With Germany, Russia, and Japan as Allies, Germany could have focused more resources on fighting Britain.
The US would still have developed the A-Bomb, but without a place to use as an air base they still wouldn't have been able to use them against Germany or Russia.
The US would still have developed the A-Bomb, but without a place to use as an air base they still wouldn't have been able to use them against Germany or Russia.
Y
yesziir24
Guest
i do think the final outcome would have been different and not as much people would even had died then! hope i helped good luck w. watever ur doing =]