What if there were secret plans and an alien craft on the cruiser?
Government conspiracy.
Would the Allies win without Russia in the real war?
-
Hitler and Stalin were headed for a war with each other and they both knew it.It was inevitable.Hitler said in his goofy book Germany needed “lebensraum” and that was in the East.The Non-Aggression Pact of '39 was just to confound the French and British from negotiating with Stalin.Hitler wanted to invade Poland so he could be right on Russias frontier.The attack on Poland caused the Allies to declare war,upsetting Hitlers actual goal–invading Russia.After defeating France,he massed the armies in Poland,telling the Russians the troops are there to escape British bombers.The rest is history.Hitlers only real goal was war with Russia but it came in a roundabout way so I think the question “Would Germany have won the war without Russia as an enemy?” is pointless.
-
Falk and Nth:
That’s what I said. I have been making fun of this thread because is ridiculous.
Bismarck:
Check your history, Canada didn’t win because there was no Canada. The war of 1812 was between the English, the French, the US, and assorted “First Nations People”.
-
So the real question should be: If Germany was only fighting Russia, would the other Allies have helped either of them?
-
Perhaps if Poland had given Germany military access, but I think Hitler wanted to occupy Poland as well. If it wasn’t for Poland I don’t think the Allies would have gotten involved and Germany would have replaced Russia in the cold war. My Oppinion of course.
And a much better topic for debate. :wink:
-
uuhhh dezrtfish, germany invading poland is what started the war. any ways back to the topic. You have to look at the industrial side too. Germany needed russias wheat, steal, oil and whatever crap is in there. If germany didnt invade russia they would have died out alot sooner from the hands of the us and uk. I know germany didnt beat russia but they got far enough to secure vital steel and wheat and some oil. Germany would not make it againts the US and Uk in full war time production. Germany barely had a war time production until 1943.
And for tanks like the tiger 1 and 2 forget about them. the germans only made these to counter russian tanks so its safe to say if they didnt fight russia the tigers would be a thought if some dudes head.
lets say germany takes africa and britan, germany is sitting very pretty right now because the US,even with their A-Bomb, did not have a stating post for invasions and no american plane could fly with an atomic bomb all the way to berlin, its impossible!
-
uuhhh dezrtfish, germany invading poland is what started the war.
Right, my comment was in reference to GI’s question as to about Britain and franch iterfearing in a strickly Germany vs. Russia war. For this to happen Germany would have had to avoid war with Poland. :wink:
-
so its safe to say if they didnt fight russia the tigers would be a thought if some dudes head.
what the hell does that mean
-
How long do you think it would take before the Germans commenced (attack land) Operation Sealion? I guess it depends how long it would take to take over Europe (except Poland) and Norway/Finland. I guess from the point they took over Norway/Finland, a year or so. Considering they still had to find out a good amphibious tanks.
-
Either the second or third of your assumptions.
You Have to specify, because if you are asking would the Allies win the war when Germany takes Poland and then goes back to take G.B. The Russians were not really suprised at the attack Of the Germans. Stalin himself knew what Hitler was like and knew he had to get ready for whatever Hitler did. So he took finland for more land. He, like so many of the earlier Czars Tried to Bring Russia into the modern ages. Though Unlike Nicholas, he used much greater violence to get his way. In 1933, six whole years before the Non-Aggression pact, Stalin killed 25 million people. This all to make Russia a huge industrial power. So, How can you say like one of you did earlier that the Allies supplied russia??
These are all technically true, however they’re not all cohesive and not all relevant. I’m especially confused by your concluding question. Where does it come from?
-
@O:
What do you mean by Would the Allies win if Russia was not in the real war? Do you mean Instead of Hitlers plan to take over the world, he forgets about Russia?? Or do you mean Hitler goes with his Generals ideas, takes on Britain, ultimately defeats them then moves on to Russia?? Or do you mean Russia some how dissappears??quote]
Are you the only one who doesnt understand the question? meaby you din’t notice how about 39 other people have posted to this subject and you don’t get it??
I MEAN RUSSIA WAS NOT IN THE WAR AT ALL, YOU DUMB FUCK, HAVENT YOU READ THE REPLYS LATELY? JESUS HOW STUPID CAN A PERSON BE!
peace out.
-
BTW, can this thread please be moved to the General Discussions, where it belongs ?
-
ok, I think u need a historical lesson. There would have been no war without Russia, so the topic is foolish. Hitler explaines in “Mein Kampf” that if you want to conquer land in Europe, u have to take Russia. He wanted land in the east. His first target was Poland. He tried to convince the french and the britts that a war between these countries would mean in great losses at both sides. But the allies decleared war. This was perfect for Stalin. He wanted the Germany to fight with the allies, and then rush into poland. But france lost unbeliveable fast, when you see on the french army´s strength. Then Stalin did not dare an attack on Germany. Now Hitler could do what he had allways wanted, conquer russia.
Back to topic: No, the allies could not win a war without russia. The entire german army fought at the eastern front. Imagin this front at the cost of U.S. This army killed 27 000000 russians. The tiny army stationed in France killed 300000 americans. The allies would have no hope. Germany was ten times stronger then america in 1941 :wink:
-
@O:
What do you mean by Would the Allies win if Russia was not in the real war? Do you mean Instead of Hitlers plan to take over the world, he forgets about Russia?? Or do you mean Hitler goes with his Generals ideas, takes on Britain, ultimately defeats them then moves on to Russia?? Or do you mean Russia some how dissappears??quote]
Are you the only one who doesnt understand the question? meaby you din’t notice how about 39 other people have posted to this subject and you don’t get it??
I MEAN RUSSIA WAS NOT IN THE WAR AT ALL, YOU DUMB f**k, HAVENT YOU READ THE REPLYS LATELY? JESUS HOW STUPID CAN A PERSON BE!
peace out.
Hey Bismark
My fault, Your right I should of wasted 20 years of my life reading all those dumb posts! I should shoot myself Im such an idiot!!! -
Shooting yourself would not be a bad idea? It would prevent idiots like you to post the dumbmest remarks EVER! And would stop people from grinding on their teeth from your stupidity. So yes shoot yourself by all means!
Peace out.
-
@Anonymous:
ok, I think u need a historical lesson. There would have been no war without Russia, so the topic is foolish. Hitler explaines in “Mein Kampf” that if you want to conquer land in Europe, u have to take Russia. He wanted land in the east. His first target was Poland. He tried to convince the french and the britts that a war between these countries would mean in great losses at both sides. But the allies decleared war. This was perfect for Stalin. He wanted the Germany to fight with the allies, and then rush into poland. But france lost unbeliveable fast, when you see on the french army´s strength. Then Stalin did not dare an attack on Germany. Now Hitler could do what he had allways wanted, conquer russia.
Back to topic: No, the allies could not win a war without russia. The entire german army fought at the eastern front. Imagin this front at the cost of U.S. This army killed 27 000000 russians. The tiny army stationed in France killed 300000 americans. The allies would have no hope. Germany was ten times stronger then america in 1941 :wink:
This is all true, however, the 27000000 Russians killed is kind of a misleading figure to show the skill of the Nazi soldiers when you consider that many of them didn’t actually have weapons.
-
'[[size=9px]size=9]@Panzersatsen:
In 1939, the Wehrmacht attacked France with a 1:1 ratio in manpower. It took 3 weeks to overrun it.
In 1944, the US and the UK landed with combined force in Normandy and advanced with a 3:1 manpower superiority, with a 5:1 superiority whenever they attacked. They had near complete air superiority. It took them 7 months to conquer France.
That’s Prussian military tradition in action.’
True, but remember that in the attack, all armies suffer a drawback and this applies to both Allied AND German. In 1944 the Germans attacked Bastogne with a 9:1 superiority. In fact, bear in mind that the Germans only launched one actual offensive in the West and that was the Bulge and they experienced the same problems experienced by the Allies.
‘The Dunkerque evacuation was only possible since Hitler panicked and ordered the panzer divisions to halt. A proper surrounding with the following tank shock would have destroyed whatever the British could have used to defend against an invasion.’
Possibly, but don’t forget that the Germans also needed time to regroup and allow their rear-echelon formations time to catch up. It wasn’t entirely Hitler interfering and stopping his forces for long term political reasons.
‘During fall 1941, Hitler ordered his troops to, instead of conquering Moscow, go towards Ukraine and its abundant food stores. Hitler moaned about how his generals don’t understand war economics, while the effects of conquering Moscow would have outweighed Ukraine heavily. The entire railroad network of USSR would have been messed up with the fall of Moscow. The army would have got proper winter shelter. The soldiers’ spirits would certainly have risen, and the Russians would most certainly have felt a huge blow to their morale.’
This is also of interest and is frequently cited. However it was Clark who insisted on a drive for Rome instead of an attempt to cut off retreating German units (after Monte Cassino taken). Clearly a focus on capturing capital cities versus wiping out enemy formations is not always wise.
‘And, most peculiar of all must be the failure to deal with Operation Overlord. Only a few hours’ drive from the beaches, there was a Panzer army which probably could have thrown back at least a few beachheads into the sea. It was though under Hitler’s personal command. At the time of the landing, Hitler was sleeping, and nobody was allowed to wake him up regardless of anything. Consequence? When Hitler finally woke up, several hours had passed and the beachheads were too well fortified to be assaulted.’
Not sure I agree with this. After Salerno and Sicily landings the Allies played hell with German counterattacks with armour. It doesn’t matter how good your panzers are if they put themselves in range of 5 inch Naval guns. Rundstedt and Rommel disagreed about how to defend against D-Day. The former wanted mobile formations in the rear kept out of range of those Allied destroyers, cruisers and battleships- with good reason.
-
One of the posts recently asserts that Russia was NOT supplied by the Allies. Whilsts the various five year plans instigated in the thirties by the communists did help industrialise the USSR they still were in need of, and very grateful for, Allied assistance.
Convoys sailed into Arctic waters landing at Archangel and Murmansk. Supplies also came through Iran which was jointly administered by the Allies and Soviets. It is true that the Soviets were not in need of weapons but they still needed help. In WW2 the Americans alone supplied them about 25,000 Ford trucks.
Finally, lets try to keep the insults out of these postings. -
USSR would have become involved either way at one point… Hitlers belief of the lebensraum, was directly related to russia. If anything the question would be would russia win the war alone! :wink:
-
USSR would have become involved either way at one point… Hitlers belief of the lebensraum, was directly related to russia. If anything the question would be would russia win the war alone! :wink:
In that case, I don’t think so– but it would have depended on how fast the Russians got slaughtered.
-
its a very interesting question. IMHO, a couple of points; number one, technology. Personally, I think the Third Reich was not interested in wonder weapons until the heady days of early victory were long gone. THerefore; I would assert there would have been no Tigers, no rockets and no predecessors to the AK 47 in a campaign against Russia.
Second. Even after Barbarossa had begun German troops were being demobilised and the German economy did not reach a total war-footing until 1944. So an assault against USSR would not have been a wonder army qualitatively and quantitatively greater than the 3 million men committed in 1941. (I promise not to use the terms ‘quantitative’ or qualitative’ in any form for at least a week).
Plus, Stalins army is still crippled by the purges amongst its upper and middle management.
Therefore, with the above in mind, could the Germans have broken the USSR? Assuming they could have given it all their attention? No distractions from the West what-so-ever?
tricky……
I would say ‘no’ albeit with some hesitation, because the above situation described is what the Germans actually faced in 1941. I think there would probably have been a stalemate for a while. But in the long term? Who had the greater resources on which to draw? USSR or Nazi Germany?
Plus the big issue; Stopping a German offensive is one thing but hoisting the Red Flag over the Reichstag is another.
Could the Allies have actually crushed Nazi Germany without one another?Chindit.
Suggested Topics
