WWII...Russia

[mikasa11]

In WWII the majority of the ground troops for nazi germany were deployed fighting the russians...

If in 1941 the german-Russia alliance held up what in your opinion would the outcome of world war II be.

IMO...The war would have been much longer than it originally was. The germans would have been able to take over England and also take over a great majority more of Africa. With England and Russia out of the picture the United States would have to fight against both the japanese the germans, and the italians. If nazi germany and japan were both able to deploy troops in the United States do you think the U.S would have had enough power to suppress them both?

And if they didn't and eventually lost the war who would stand up and still be fighting on the allies side, and would they have a chance?

 

[Brian Foley]

If in 1941 the german-Russia alliance held up what in your opinion would the outcome of world war II be.

The Russo-Nazi pact signed in 1939 was just a time saver for both sides . The Germans needed time to finish up France and neutralize Britain . And the Russians needed time to absorb the Baltic states and part of Poland to put as much of a geogragphical buffer zone between them and the Nazis invasion . Russia knew since 1934 Germany was rearming to invade and colonize Russia .

The germans would have been able to take over England and also take over a great majority more of Africa.

Germany could of directly after Dunkirque invaded and occupied Britain , but the Germans used Britain as a mask to build up troops on Russias southern border under the guise of preventing a British push into the Balkans.

If nazi germany and japan were both able to deploy troops in the United States do you think the U.S would have had enough power to suppress them both?

The US had no problem in dealing with technically backward Japan at the Battle of Midway America sent Japanese military prowess to the bottom of the sea in a matter of hours. Germany had different imperial objectives from Japan and had no desire being a full allie to Japan .

And if they didn't and eventually lost the war who would stand up and still be fighting on the allies side, and would they have a chance?

America being the outside power with the industrial capacity and financial power to fuel it could manipulate the outcome . The War would of been settled by the American economic/industrial/financial complex with the Soviet juggernaut .

 

[Axes]

All 3 major allies (Brittain, US, USSR) were needed to defeat Germany. Take one out of the equasion and you would have had Nazi germany alive and kicking today.

In you're scenario in case the peace held out between Russia and Germany, germany would have probably continued the war against Brittain, though not succeeding in conquering it. You would have seen a german mediterainian though.

 

[Thersites]

First of all, it was the Soviet Union, not Russia. Given that the Germans hadn't successfully invaded Britain when it was at its weakest in 1940 that probably couldn't have happened later. A great many soviet citizens loathed the USSR so much they fought eagerly against it and the other allies. The soviet government also lockedor deported millions of its own citizens- a wasteful- as well as immoral- way to behave.
If Germany hadn't invaded the Soviet union Britain would probably have behaved much more politrely to Japan and tried to persuade the USA to do the same. Gibven the Germans' difficulties in getting supplies across the Meditaerranean they probably wouldn't have got anywhere in N Africa: on the other hand they might have starved Britain through intensified submarine warfare. Probably an army coup would have taken place in Germany- it was fear of the Soviet Union that kept the army from intervening before.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Nazi Germany's best army groups were destroyed on Russian soil. It was basically a mopping up action after that for the allied forces.

Would it have been so easy for the allies after and duing D-day if they had met crack army groups instead only?

Of course the fact that Hitler insisted on dictating battle tactics more and more was also a major factor that crippled the German army in the end. There could have been a splendid army group in france to stand opposite of the allied forces, but it could have been made also incompetent by Hitlers insistence on controlling every little detail.

But what if? If there never had been an Ostfront? The Germans would have had plenty of reserve power, both on land and in the air to put up some stiff resistance. The ostfront really depleted the german army of its best troops and material. Although production figures went up near the end of the war, lots of these figures were meaningless. For instance the number of machine guns that were produced kept climbing during the war, but did the amount of ammo for it do the same? No.

Could it have been possible for the allied forces to pull of a succesful invasion in france if the german army was still able to kick ass???

 

[Killjoy]

Germany could of directly after Dunkirque invaded and occupied Britain , but the Germans used Britain as a mask to build up troops on Russias southern border under the guise of preventing a British push into the Balkans.

No, sir...

The Germans lacked the transport necessary to move an invasion force across the channel - they eventually decided to use river barges towed by tugs, a ludicrous notion at best - air supremacy over the potential invasion sites - necessary for their planned use of aircraft like the Stuka as a substitute for artillery - and the means to keep the Royal Navy from rendering any force which did manage a landing utterly impotent from lack of supplies, or simply sending it to a watery grave.

 

[invert_nexus]

The reason that Germany was unable to invade Britain is because they didn't have the naval power to do so. Battleships (the German equivalent. I don't have my books handy to reference the exact details although I could if anyone is that interested) take a lot of time and materials to build. The air force and army was built up rather quickly. But the naval rearmament couldn't be rushed. The commander of the navy (again. I forget details. Doenitz?) was under a time frame in which the navy would be up to full strength in the year 1945 or 1946. It was at this time that the war was supposed to begin. But Hitler couldn't resist taking his little bites and nibbles. He kept thinking that he could get away with just one more. And he was almost right. If France hadn't stood strong on their alliance with Poland, Chamberlain would have signed Poland over to the Nazis in 1939. He was trying and this trying ended his career. Churchill was a hawk and took advantage of Chamberlain's peacenik mistake to take power.

Anyway, the only way that the nave was up to par was in submarines as they were small and relatively quick and easy to manufacture.

Hitler's greed got the better of him.

It's funny, because in the early days his generals were against him. They lit him march across the Ruhr because they were sure that he'd get his ass handed to him and they'd be able to keep him in line afterwards. Same with Austria and Czechoslavakia. Each time the generals were prepared to revolt and remove him from office once things started to go bad, but they didn't. The peacenik League of Nations played into Hitler's hands and with each successive victory his hold on his nation tightened. Here was a man doing the impossible with bluff and bluster. By the time Poland came around, the generals were mostly in the palm of his hand and the people would have slaughtered the generals had they attempted to remove him from power.


And, by the way, I don't think that Stalin did think of the non-agression pact as a temporary solution. He thought he truly had an ally in Hitler and Germany. Stupid, yes. But Stalin was not exactly the brightest bulb in the bunch, you know. In fact, when Hitler broke the pact and began his attack, Stalin refused to believe the reports, saying that they were a mistake or miscommunication of some sort. The Germans advanced for a day or two before Stalin was finally able to admit that he had been betrayed. At this time, he retreated to his home and waited for the party executioners to come and eliminate him. After all, that's what he'd do in their position. And they came. But they weren't executioners. Instead they begged him to come back to Moscow and take command. The country needed him.

Stalin was shocked by this but he quickly recovered and because of this weakness in his subordinates, all the atrocities that he visited upon his own people in later years followed.

But, his actions clearly demonstrate that he believed the Nazi's would be as good as their word in this.

What's funny is that Hitler attacked the USSR because he figured that if he did so it would work to get the West behind him. Better a German ally than a Soviet one. Again. He guessed wrong. His luck had run out.

 

[mathman]

When you contrast the Normady invasion of 1944 with what Hitler would have needed it is clear why he couldn't try. In 1944 the allies had complete air and sea control of the English channel and also complete air control over Normandy.

Hitler tried to knock out Britain in 1940 with air power and failed. Any attempt at an invasion of Britain in 1940 or early 1941 would have had to face not only a powerful navy, but also a very strong air defense. Furthermore Germany never had sufficient landing craft to even try.