# How would World War II  Have Gone  had The US and Britain  not helped the Russians at all?



## BAYLOR (Apr 11, 2021)

Not accepted them as allies against Nazi German and, not  give given any aid or supplies . How would have the war have likely progressed had that happened ?


----------



## HareBrain (Apr 11, 2021)

I suppose it might have hampered the Soviet war effort to the extent that the western allies would have been able to capture all of Germany. Whether they would have done so, or held it, I'm not sure, as that would have left the USSR with no buffer and heightened tensions above what they actually were in the Cold War.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 11, 2021)

HareBrain said:


> I suppose it might have hampered the Soviet war effort to the extent that the western allies would have been able to capture all of Germany. Whether they would have done so, or held it, I'm not sure, as that would have left the USSR with no buffer and heightened tensions above what they actually were in the Cold War.



I think possible that without  US and UK aid , Russia collapses and by that , I mean that  they  lose Moscow , Leningrad , Stalingrad and very possibly the Caucus oilfields and with the old whatever mechanized forces  they have would run out of fuel . They  don't surrender but, continue to fight from more distant regions of the USSR. In that scenario , moving  their factories further east wouldn't help because  the German movie ht bomber further afield which mean they knock out theses  Russian factories and further Hamper  the Russians .   Joseph Stalin would not be in charge of what's left because  very likel, the  politburo would have taken that opportunity to have him shot.  This scenario would have also have some dire strategic consequences for the US and the UK  .


----------



## reiver33 (Apr 11, 2021)

I agree with HareBrain that it would have retarded the Soviet comeback by 1 or even 2 years, but the German high-water mark (Stalingrad) predates the major influx of aid. Trucks are the biggie - they primarily served to enhance the Soviet mechanised corps that tore the front apart in 1944, at last giving them a logistical 'tail' and increasing their operational endurance. If The Soviets are slow off the mark in late 43/44, then that gives the Germans time to bolster the West pre-Normandy. The Germans still lose big, unless Hitler lets his Field Marshalls fight unfettered (eventual Allied victory but take a lot more casualties), but it would slow the advance through France to a crawl.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 11, 2021)

reiver33 said:


> I agree with HareBrain that it would have retarded the Soviet comeback by 1 or even 2 years, but the German high-water mark (Stalingrad) predates the major influx of aid. Trucks are the biggie - they primarily served to enhance the Soviet mechanised corps that tore the front apart in 1944, at last giving them a logistical 'tail' and increasing their operational endurance. If The Soviets are slow off the mark in late 43/44, then that gives the Germans time to bolster the West pre-Normandy. The Germans still lose big, unless Hitler lets his Field Marshalls fight unfettered (eventual Allied victory but take a lot more casualties), but it would slow the advance through France to a crawl.



But with the Russians on the ropes , the German can redirect military assets to both  Salerno  and Normandy. This could potentially enable them to block the  landings at both those  places thus keep allies off the Continent for lander period of time . That might give time to further refine p some of their super weapons like the V2 and Jet fighters. The war drags on till 1947 or 48 and by that time the US has amassed   a stockpile atom bombs and starts targeting German cities.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 11, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> But with the Russians on the ropes , the German can redirect military assets to both  Salerno  and Normandy. This could potentially enable them to block the  landings at both those  places thus keep allies off the Continent for lander period of time . That might give time to further refine p some of their super weapons like the V2 and Jet fighters. The war drags on till 1947 or 48 and by that time the US has amassed   \a stockpile atom bombs and starts targeting German cities.



Nope, the German logistic chain had essentially broken down by the end of 1941 in Russia. It took a superhuman effort and a still disorganised enemy to attempt Case Blue and they failed on the River Volga and Stalingrad. As reiver points out that high water mark of November 1942 predates most of the aid. 

Thus the Germans, smarting from the defeat at Stalingrad would still have to commit to a summer offensive against the Russians in 1943. So they attempt Kursk - which you note, is not a grand strategic operations to take vast amounts of Russia, but an opertion to merely reduce a salient in the Russian line. The German army by this stage had more or less spent its ability to go on the strategic offensive. And this too was a failure and they went onto the defensive. 

I don't think Russia would have been on the ropes, as you say. 

When 1944 comes around, the Battle for the Atlantic had been won and the Luftwaffe was effectively smashed. Yes, the Germans try their best to crush Normandy, but the air superiority and Western Allies logistics and numbers are too great. Add to this the inevitable collapse of Army Group Centre by the Russians in Bagration. 

Now at this point, perhaps if there had been no aid, there might have been an effect, as this may have hampered the Soviet armies in this operation and slowed them down in their successes. But I don't think it would have added another year to the war. 

Also, Baylor, why do you keep going on about these "Wonder" weapons  . They weren't.

The V2 wasn't going to help them militarily and therefore essentially a waste of time and resources. The jet fighters they produced were good, but also unreliable and fuel guzzlers. But the main problem that the Luftwaffe wasn't planes, it was that they weren't producing enough pilots, or they weren't living long enough to maintain a deep pool of experienced pilots.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 12, 2021)

Venusian Broon said:


> Nope, the German logistic chain had essentially broken down by the end of 1941 in Russia. It took a superhuman effort and a still disorganised enemy to attempt Case Blue and they failed on the River Volga and Stalingrad. As reiver points out that high water mark of November 1942 predates most of the aid.
> 
> Thus the Germans, smarting from the defeat at Stalingrad would still have to commit to a summer offensive against the Russians in 1943. So they attempt Kursk - which you note, is not a grand strategic operations to take vast amounts of Russia, but an opertion to merely reduce a salient in the Russian line. The German army by this stage had more or less spent its ability to go on the strategic offensive. And this too was a failure and they went onto the defensive.
> 
> ...


At beginning of The Battle of Britain, the German Luftwaffe was the most powerful Air Force in the world , Fighter Command and the RAF severely mauled the Luftwaffe , costing them 3000 of thei best pilots and aircrews . That was slow beginning go the end of the Luftwaffe which never real recovered.     The Germans made lots mistakes  with regard to Russia , the biggest of which was invading them in the first place. Russia bled Wehrmacht dry.  Russia swallowed men and equipmnet and resources  

Most of the V2's didn't work ,  exploded  on  the ground,  malfunctioned in flight  and crashed more offend than not , or didn't find their targets at all. Their gyroscopic navigation  systems were not up to the task because  technological  limitations  and sabotage by prisoner working on them.  It is possible with more time they might have corrected some of those flaws but not with the allies closing in on them and destroying the production  facilities. The ME 262 was also  vulnerable  when it was taking off and landing and,  could be dispatched by P51 Mustangs .  Also , it arrived way too late to make any kind of a difference.  Their super tanks like the King Tiger were devastating when they worked which was more not than often. These tanks were slow  and  broke down because their  engines and transmissions were not up to the task  driving  the 68 ton tank and they , used massive amount of fuel and they were took expensive to produce and could could not be produced in sufficient numbers , could not be easily served or repaired  the battlefield. l Also the too many competing weapons in production and weapons programs eating up valuable resources.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Apr 12, 2021)

As an American who took history in the 60s, this is an embarrassing question.  I remember a question on a test, "What General said 'Nuts!' to the Germans rather than surrender at the Battle of the Bulge?"

I didn't know the answer and thought it was a stupid question because of its unimportance.

The Russians hardly existed in my so called history of WWII. We rescued the British even though they gave us technology for RADAR and proximity fuses. 

Nobody else matters in American history.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 12, 2021)

psikeyhackr said:


> As an American who took history in the 60s, this is an embarrassing question.  I remember a question on a test, "What General said 'Nuts!' to the Germans rather than surrender at the Battle of the Bulge?"
> 
> I didn't know the answer and thought it was a stupid question because of its unimportance.
> 
> ...


The British  also gave us access to Frank Whittles jet engine  technology .


----------



## psikeyhackr (Apr 12, 2021)

I only got C's in history because it was so obviously just propagandistic bullsh**. I don't really have a clue how much aid England and the US gave to the Russians. It probably wasn't until watching the History Channel that I had any idea how many Russians died in WWII.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 12, 2021)

psikeyhackr said:


> I only got C's in history because it was so obviously just propagandistic bullsh**. I don't really have a clue how much aid England and the US gave to the Russians. It probably wasn't until watching the History Channel that I had any idea how many Russians died in WWII.



In 1937,  Stalin being the paranoid criminal  incompetent stooge  that he was, purged all his generals and officers and pretty mush destroyed the effectiveness of his military.  He bares a good part  of the responsibility for the high Russian causalities because he weakened  the Russian state with his stupidity .   In the days leading up to the to invasion , his spy networks got wind of what the Germans were planning  to do and he ignored them.  And worst of all , he trusted Hitler.

As for Stalin the great war leader, that one is another myth. The main reason the Russian soldiers  fought for him  was not so much for  patriotism but out fear, he had  special units of soldiers who were ordered to shoot anyone who wouldn't  fight or tired to retreat.


----------



## jjcomet (Apr 12, 2021)

One thing to add for the Russian stability is the UK provided them intel. from Benchly Park with the Enigma machine, informing Stalin the Japanese had no intention of invading from China.  So that provided Zhukov with almost a million troops to throw against Stalingrad.  
The Eastern Front would have been a drawn out battle.  Though Hitler constantly splitting his forces did not bode well.
The Germans had limited oil supply and their synthetic supply became a depleted fact with allied bombing.  They would have taken the Caucasus and kept the war effort operational for perhaps another year.  I also do not think their V weapons or Jets would have made a great impact.  Too many irons in the fire was Hitler's problem - Bigger is Better.   
Overall I see it as Russia able to hold on through manpower but the western allies would have taken Germany and there would not have been a Soviet Block.


----------



## jjcomet (Apr 12, 2021)

The Studebaker truck is was really helped the Russians take back their lost country.  The Stalin Organ may not have been accurate so they compensated with sheer volume.  The food rations and ammo provided by the US led Russia to their victory.  So without the western allies aid Russia would have survived but barely.  Way too much land for Germany to control with the US and UK storming in from the west.


----------



## jjcomet (Apr 12, 2021)

It was Major-General Anthony McAuliffe that replied "Nuts!"


----------



## psikeyhackr (Apr 12, 2021)

jjcomet said:


> It was Major-General Anthony McAuliffe that replied "Nuts!"


LOL

I could easily have looked it up in almost 50 years but I still consider it a stupid question for a teacher to ask about a subject as important as WWII.

I have seen film of proximity fuses used in artillery on the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge.  It is quite possible that proximity fuses used against Japanese aircraft affected how long it took Americans to fight across the Pacific and get within range to drop the atomic bomb.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Apr 12, 2021)

I would probably get B's in history today because it would be so easy to find YouTube videos about whatever time period the teacher was covering. But then I might get D's because I would pay attention to stuff that contradicted the opinions of the teacher.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Apr 12, 2021)

Nuts was from The Battle Of The Bulge. It was an important battle, largest and worst casualties for Americans in WWII, and it started out by catching the Americans completely by surprise and at first poorly positioned to do anything about it. Because of bad weather the US Air Force was unable to do very much. The situation changed radically when the weather cleared up.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 12, 2021)

Robert Zwilling said:


> Nuts was from The Battle Of The Bulge. It was an important battle, largest and worst casualties for Americans in WWII, and it started out by catching the Americans completely by surprise and at first poorly positioned to do anything about it. Because of bad weather the US Air Force was unable to do very much. The situation changed radically when the weather cleared up.



Two of My Uncles fought in the battle of the Bulge, They never talked about it. Didn't want to.


----------



## CupofJoe (Apr 12, 2021)

jjcomet said:


> One thing to add for the Russian stability is the UK provided them intel. from Benchly Park with the Enigma machine, informing Stalin the Japanese had no intention of invading from China.  So that provided Zhukov with almost a million troops to throw against Stalingrad.
> The Eastern Front would have been a drawn out battle.  Though Hitler constantly splitting his forces did not bode well.
> The Germans had limited oil supply and their synthetic supply became a depleted fact with allied bombing.  They would have taken the Caucasus and kept the war effort operational for perhaps another year.  I also do not think their V weapons or Jets would have made a great impact.  Too many irons in the fire was Hitler's problem - Bigger is Better.
> Overall I see it as Russia able to hold on through manpower but the western allies would have taken Germany and there would not have been a Soviet Block.


I have a friend that maintains that the most important moments of WWII were the Battles of Khalkhin Gol across the summer of 1939. They completely removed the threat of a Japanese attack in the East, so that Soviet Russia _only_ had to deal with Germany in the West... well... I say only....
As for the OP. I tend to think that it would have taken longer and been far more bloody than it was, but the result would have been the same, a Nazi defeat... Now would a protracted war in Western Europe have made the US/Allies drop the atomic bomb on Germany? I don't know, but that was what they were designed to before I thought I read.


----------



## Foxbat (Apr 12, 2021)

I think a more pertinent question would be: could the allies have won if Russia had never been invaded?

The deaths in WW2 were around 55 million. Around 27 million of those were Russian. It’s simply staggering that even losing that number of people, the Soviet Union still took the fight right into the streets of Berlin.


----------



## psikeyhackr (Apr 12, 2021)

So what material help did the UK and US provide to the USSR?


----------



## psikeyhackr (Apr 12, 2021)

Foxbat said:


> I think a more pertinent question would be: could the allies have won if Russia had never been invaded?
> 
> The deaths in WW2 were around 55 million. Around 27 million of those were Russian. It’s simply staggering that even losing that number of people, the Soviet Union still took the fight right into the streets of Berlin.


Should we be grateful that ultimately Hitler and Stalin were both stupid?


----------



## reiver33 (Apr 12, 2021)

If the Axis don’t attack the Soviet Union, and go for the Mediterranean strategy instead, they take Malta, Crete, Cyprus, North Africa and the Near East, aiming for the Persian oil fields. Then the Soviets attack in 42, after the mechanised corps have been reorganised and re-equipped - and Berlin is a metaphorical stones throw from Soviet-occupied Poland.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 12, 2021)

reiver33 said:


> If the Axis don’t attack the Soviet Union, and go for the Mediterranean strategy instead, they take Malta, Crete, Cyprus, North Africa and the Near East, aiming for the Persian oil fields. Then the Soviets attack in 42, after the mechanised corps have been reorganised and re-equipped - and Berlin is a metaphorical stones throw from Soviet-occupied Poland.



If the Germans were to have gone though Turkey and secured Iraq possibly Saudi Arabia , they  all the oil they needed would have been very close  Stalins oil fields .


----------



## CupofJoe (Apr 12, 2021)

The Anglo Iraqi war of May 41 wasn't large but it decisively ended any real chance of Germany getting Iraqi oil.
And then followed up a couple of months later by the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, just to make sure the oil came to the Allies and give another American supply route into Soviet Russia.
I've always wondered how Nazi Germany would have faired if they hadn't allied themselves militarily with Fascist Italy. The rot seems to set in once they are committed to supporting Italian moves in the Balkans/Greece and North Africa. 
Hurray for politics and ideology before strategy!


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 12, 2021)

CupofJoe said:


> The Anglo Iraqi war of May 41 wasn't large but it decisively ended any real chance of Germany getting Iraqi oil.
> And then followed up a couple of months later by the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, just to make sure the oil came to the Allies and give another American supply route into Soviet Russia.
> I've always wondered how Nazi Germany would have faired if they hadn't allied themselves militarily with Fascist Italy. The rot seems to set in once they are committed to supporting Italian moves in the Balkans/Greece and North Africa.
> Hurray for politics and ideology before strategy!



If Mussolini had stayed  away from Hitler, stayed Neutral like Franco  and, not engaged in any overseas empire building , he might well have lived to a ripe old age in office.  Mussolini's foreign policy blunders  no doubt caused  Hitler to delay  Operation Barbarossa by  forced him divert  troops to help  bail him out.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Apr 12, 2021)

One factor that helped the Russians immensely was the weather. Their equipment wasn't as sophisticated as the Germans but it was able to operate better in the cold winter weather. The Germans had advanced technology but they were fighting each other to stay in positions of personal power instead of working together. If you didn't deliver you fell out of favor which had all kinds of negative impacts.


----------



## CupofJoe (Apr 12, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> If Mussolini had stayed  away from Hitler, stayed Neutral like Franco  and, not engaged in any overseas empire building , he might well have lived to a ripe old age in office.


Now there is a cheery thought... But he wanted his New Roman Empire so badly... 


BAYLOR said:


> Mussolini's foreign policy blunders  no doubt caused  Hitler to delay  Operation Barbarossa by  forced him divert  troops to help  bail him out.


I'm sure I read that in the 30s, there was a German Ambassador's report back to his bosses in Berlin, along the line of *Never under any circumstances get involved with Mussolini*. I think the word _delusional_ was involved...


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 12, 2021)

CupofJoe said:


> Now there is a cheery thought... But he wanted his New Roman Empire so badly...
> 
> I'm sure I read that in the 30s, there was a German Ambassador's report back to his bosses in Berlin, along the line of *Never under any circumstances get involved with Mussolini*. I think the word _delusional_ was involved...


Given what  delusional egomaniac  Mussolini was , he was destined for bad end.   In the early days,  before he got into power , Hitler admired Mussolini and considered him to be  role model . But over time , that changed.


----------



## Parson (Apr 12, 2021)

The truth is that we don't know how WW II would have played out without US and British aid to the Russians. I believe that you can make a case for almost any scenario from the war taking only a little longer, to Germany developing the atom bomb and winning the war. --- I don't see either as very possible, but possible none-the-less.

As mentioned up thread, the really key and really stupid move Hitler made was invading Russia in the first place. He'd have been much better served to forget about the invasion of Russia, who might well have stayed out of the fighting, and concentrate on the Western Allies. If he defeated them (I'd make his chances of success at about 35%) he could then try to kill off the Soviet leadership by bombs and assassination. Temporary world domination was not completely out of the question for Hitler.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Apr 13, 2021)

For me Hitler's biggest mistake was declaring war on the US. A war with Russia was at least tactically sound; Germany could gain desperately needed resources (especially oil) as well as securing the only land border where he could be threatened. Plus (because of Stalin's purges of the armed forces) Russia was never going to be weaker. It was almost inevitable at some point that Stalin and Hitler would go to war, so it might as well be whilst Germany had a fully mobilised army which was full of confidence after the conquest of Western Europe. 

One of Germany's biggest mistakes in Russia was treating the population and prisoners of war so badly. Not only was it morally bad, but tactically unsound too. Russians knew that if they surrendered they would be badly treated by their German captors, and if they retreated they would receive worse treatment from their commanders (worse because not only would they be punished, but likely their families too). So they had to stand and fight, which cost the Germans not just men and munitions but valuable time too. 

But going back to the USA, a declaration of war by Hitler was utterly bonkers. What's the point in declaring war on a country who you have no way of attacking; a country able to quickly manufacture huge stockpiles of munitions and war machinery, that has (virtually) unlimited resources (especially oil) and millions of potential troops ready to be conscripted into it's armed forces?

Some may say that he declared war because the US were about to declare war on Germany. But were they? WWII had been raging for 2 years and they hadn't declared war. And with Pearl Harbour being bombed, American eyes were turning East, not West, to deal with the most dangerous, most immediate threat - Japan. Hitler declaring war on the US must have been a huge relief to Churchill, and probably to Roosevelt as well.


----------



## Parson (Apr 13, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> Some may say that he declared war because the US were about to declare war on Germany. But were they? WWII had been raging for 2 years and they hadn't declared war. And with Pearl Harbour being bombed, American eyes were turning East, not West, to deal with the most dangerous, most immediate threat - Japan. Hitler declaring war on the US must have been a huge relief to Churchill, and probably to Roosevelt as well.


I think it was plain that Roosevelt wanted to declare war on Germany. Over the course of the early years the US had moved closer and closer to the allies, and I believe eventually they would have. Notice that militarily the war in Europe was almost immediately the primary concern of the US, and the war on Japan was pushed to the back burner. But Hitler's move removed any doubt which might have lingered.


----------



## Bren G (Apr 13, 2021)

psikeyhackr said:


> So what material help did the UK and US provide to the USSR?


Trucks were the biggest contribution as far as I know. I watched a great lecture by Victor Davis Hanson on Youtube a while back where he described how the Germans complained that the Soviet Army ran on Ford. Also, he states that horses were still very much in use and in great numbers on both sides, so the truck was indeed a differentiator across the vast distance of eastern Europe.

Here is an article I found that states the numbers of trucks, planes, tanks and more.  Canada (who seems to get forgotten despite declaring war a week after the UK and which made disproportionate contributions in personal and material for its small size) made significant 'donations' to the Soviets as well, second only to the value donated to Britain.

***

Under president Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Lead-Lease program, the United States sent the Soviet Union 13,000 fighter planes and bombers, 6,000 tanks and 430,000 trucks, jeeps and other wheeled vehicles, along with vast supplies of raw materials. While most of our production went to British and Commonwealth armies, Canada also played a significant role arming the Soviets. We gave Russia almost our entire supply of Valentine tanks, along with more than 1,300 tracked weapons carriers and several thousand of our useful CMP trucks, including 1,500 of the biggest six-by-six variant specially upgraded to Arctic conditions. And we repaired for free the Russian freighters needed to transport all this matériel. Of the $32 billion (2016 dollars) Canada handed out in Mutual Aid, Russia received the second-largest share after Britain.

Link -> Peter Shawn Taylor: The trucks that beat Hitler


----------



## Bren G (Apr 13, 2021)

Parson said:


> The truth is that we don't know how WW II would have played out without US and British aid to the Russians. I believe that you can make a case for almost any scenario from the war taking only a little longer, to Germany developing the atom bomb and winning the war. --- I don't see either as very possible, but possible none-the-less.
> 
> As mentioned up thread, the really key and really stupid move Hitler made was invading Russia in the first place. He'd have been much better served to forget about the invasion of Russia, who might well have stayed out of the fighting, and concentrate on the Western Allies. If he defeated them (I'd make his chances of success at about 35%) he could then try to kill off the Soviet leadership by bombs and assassination. Temporary world domination was not completely out of the question for Hitler.


There seems to be evidence that the USSR was massing near Germany's borders for an invasion despite their treaty with the Nazis, and if this was indeed true, it is said by some historians that Hitler attacked Russia to be on the offensive and not on their heels.  This set of events, the proponents historians claim, was buried to smooth over any negative perceptions of the USSR from the western media. The west didn't desire to continue the war, though some generals like Patton saw the threat that the USSR posed and wanted to finish the job (and some claim that was the real reason why Patton was sidelined). The rest of course ... is history.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 13, 2021)

Bren G said:


> There seems to be evidence that the USSR was massing near Germany's borders for an invasion despite their treaty with the Nazis, and if this was indeed true, it is said by some historians that Hitler attacked Russia to be on the offensive and not on their heels.  This set of events, the proponents historians claim, was buried to smooth over any negative perceptions of the USSR from the western media. The west didn't desire to continue the war, though some generals like Patton saw the threat that the USSR posed and wanted to finish the job (and some claim that was the real reason why Patton was sidelined). The rest of course ... is history.



They shelved Operation Unthinkable


----------



## pogopossum (Apr 13, 2021)

I am interested in Bren's  comment re Stalin "massing" as I remember being taught the opposite. Not that hitler was not afraid that Stalin would attack, but that the Soviets were still preoccupied with absorbing Poland and consolidating generally, there were relatively few forces anywhere near the Border. We all know that the initial German attack was a cakewalk with what few Russian forces that were in their way being quickly destroyed.
Bren gives the answer as to the level of support provided to Russia from the US (and Canada). There was also support for what became a huge Russian industrial capacity.
Counterfactual arguments are easy to make as one can always find what seemed to be crucial decisions and assume that if they hadn't happened outcomes would have changed substantially.
If Germany had not attacked Russia they would have had eight to ten times the forces available for North Africa. Memoirs suggest that FDR was happy that Germany declared war as he felt that the us should get in, but that Congress would not go along as Japan had attacked the US and the initial sentiment was to fight them first. Hitler took that choice away within the week.
FDR supported England. Churchill made it clear that supporting Russia (which he hated) was necessary to the support of England.
Of course Stalin was paranoid. But false conspiracies like the"Doctor's Plot" and purges kept his enemies or potential enemies fearful and probably unable to mount any opposition. He did not "trust" Hitler but with the Soviet Nazi pact thought that Hitler was a pragmatist and just did not see how it could benefit Germany to attack him.
So why did it happen? Was Hitler just such a paranoic hater of Communism? Was he incompetent, thinking it would be a quick war as the Russia or at least the Soviet regime, would collapse? Or did he actually expect an attack, perhaps later when Russia would be stronger and felt attacking was necessary?
I remember a comment that Stalin's purge of his top military, while disruptive, made every general personally responsible to him and destroyed the one potential focus of opposition to his rule. He acted similarly after the war, purging his most popular general.
My personal take on the original question is that without US support, Russia would not have been able to hold the Nazis, certainly not at Stalingrad and (I forget the name) the major subsequent battle. Stalin would have signed a treaty  giving Hitler any resources he demanded or have been knocked out sufficiently so that Hitler could seize them, but that would not necessarily have worked to win the war, more probably leading to a hugely more difficult grinding campaign across Europe.
Hitler could not have knocked out the US & Canada and Australia et al, but with twice the forces available would without doubt it would have
been a different war. Industrial capacity and population would have taken years longer to win it and perhaps there would have been a more divided America for continuing the fight.


----------



## jjcomet (Apr 13, 2021)

Another reason for the US (FDR) to support the UK (and his good friend Churchill) when war was declared would be the loss of England as a base of operation.  It would have been a logistical nightmare to try and mount a invasion on either Africa or Europe if England fell.  The U-Boats would have had a field day.  And again if Hitler did not invade Russia, Operation Sea Lion would have been on.  True the Battle of Britain may have convinced him otherwise.  
Much of the US populace wanted to go after Japan with everything starting Dec. 8th 1941, yet England prevailed.


----------



## CupofJoe (Apr 13, 2021)

I think we are getting away from the original post... . 
But Operation Sea Lion was planned for the Summer/Autumn of 1940. And Barbarossa was almost a year later in the Spring/Summer of 41. Hitler may have turned to Barbarossa so early because Sea Lion didn't happen. If there hadn't been a Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe would have been far stronger in 41, so who knows what affect that might have had.
I don't think the German military were ever truly set up for Sea Lion. The 1974 Operation Sea Lion war game showed how badly it would have gone [and just look at the "cast" list!].


----------



## paranoid marvin (Apr 13, 2021)

Parson said:


> I think it was plain that Roosevelt wanted to declare war on Germany. Over the course of the early years the US had moved closer and closer to the allies, and I believe eventually they would have. Notice that militarily the war in Europe was almost immediately the primary concern of the US, and the war on Japan was pushed to the back burner. But Hitler's move removed any doubt which might have lingered.




Yes, he knew that he needed to get Hitler beat before he consolidated his forces in Europe and made it an impregnable fortress. On the flip side, there was always the danger that Russia would defeat Germany and become the dominant force; either was not a good option. 

I think US would have eventually declared war on the US but I think that without a German declaration of war , Roosevelt would have had a tough time persuading them to declare war on Germany when Japan had just bombed Pearl Harbour.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Apr 13, 2021)

jjcomet said:


> Another reason for the US (FDR) to support the UK (and his good friend Churchill) when war was declared would be the loss of England as a base of operation.  It would have been a logistical nightmare to try and mount a invasion on either Africa or Europe if England fell.  The U-Boats would have had a field day.  And again if Hitler did not invade Russia, Operation Sea Lion would have been on.  True the Battle of Britain may have convinced him otherwise.
> Much of the US populace wanted to go after Japan with everything starting Dec. 8th 1941, yet England prevailed.




It would have been virtually impossible. It was incredibly dangerous and touch and go with the short crossing from the English south coast to France. Travelling from the US would have been impossible. On top of that the U boats operation out of England with no Royal Navy? Forget about it.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Apr 13, 2021)

CupofJoe said:


> I think we are getting away from the original post... .
> But Operation Sea Lion was planned for the Summer/Autumn of 1940. And Barbarossa was almost a year later in the Spring/Summer of 41. Hitler may have turned to Barbarossa so early because Sea Lion didn't happen. If there hadn't been a Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe would have been far stronger in 41, so who knows what affect that might have had.
> I don't think the German military were ever truly set up for Sea Lion. The 1974 Operation Sea Lion war game showed how badly it would have gone [and just look at the "cast" list!].



If there hadn't been a Battle of Britain, not only would the Luftwaffe been in better shape, they would have been able to attack much earlier. Even 3 or 4 months could have made the difference between success and failure.

But back on topic, there was never any realistic chance of the US and Britain NOT supplying the Russians. They desperately needed to keep that front open and as many German troops occupied as possible for as long as possible. If Hitler had defeated the main threat in Russia and captured the oilfields, he could have strengthened his defences in West Europe making D-Day impossible. Remember it was touch and go as it was, and that was with the majority of German forces tied up in Russia, with nearly all the airforce and panzer divisions. Without air superiority over the landing beaches, it would have been a much,much more difficult task. In fact they probably wouldn't even have attempted it, instead going up through Italy.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 19, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> Yes, he knew that he needed to get Hitler beat before he consolidated his forces in Europe and made it an impregnable fortress. On the flip side, there was always the danger that Russia would defeat Germany and become the dominant force; either was not a good option.
> 
> I think US would have eventually declared war on the US but I think that without a German declaration of war , Roosevelt would have had a tough time persuading them to declare war on Germany when Japan had just bombed Pearl Harbour.



In World War II  we have  Stalin and  Hitler ,  two of the most  evil dictators in all of history and ,  we allied ourselves with the former  to bring abut the defeat of the latter.  In the end , Stalin got what he wanted , he got keep  his job and he got keep eastern Europe as a buffer zone.

Yes Ultimately  , Roosevelt and his military commanders  would have found some pretext  a declaration of war on Germany going. For Uboats were already targeting US ships , so that might have been enough.


----------



## svalbard (Apr 20, 2021)

The development of the Nuclear Bomb makes it all moot. That ends the war in Europe regardless of the helping Russia or not.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Apr 20, 2021)

svalbard said:


> The development of the Nuclear Bomb makes it all moot. That ends the war in Europe regardless of the helping Russia or not.




It depends. If Britain has been occupied by Germany then there's no way that the US can deliver their payload of bombs. And even if they can launch their attack from the UK, would they? For one they have very few of the weapons, for another they have to make it from the UK to Germany in slow bombers to deliver them. Imagine one of their planes carrying a nuke gets brought down over Europe, and suddenly Hitler has all the technology sitting in his lap? 

On the other hand Hitler does have the capability to launch attacks over large distances with his V2. If the war in Russia is going well, he is more capable of defending his manufacturing and weapons development in the West from UK/US air attack. It's quite possible that Germany has the capability to attack American cities with nuclear or chemical weapons before the US develops the capability to deliver their atom bombs to German cities.

But I agree that if D-Day has been successful, then Germany falls apart with atom bombs dropped on German troops, however well the Eastern front is faring.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Apr 20, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> In World War II  we have  Stalin and  Hitler ,  two of the most  evil dictators in all of history and ,  we allied ourselves with the former  to bring abut the defeat of the latter.  In the end , Stalin got what he wanted , he got keep  his job and he got keep eastern Europe as a buffer zone.
> 
> Yes Ultimately  , Roosevelt and his military commanders  would have found some pretext  a declaration of war on Germany going. For Uboats were already targeting US ships , so that might have been enough.




Germany had been sinking US ships and killing US citizens for more than 2 years. I'm not sure what it was going to take for the US to declare war on Germany. And after Pearl Harbour, it would have been even tougher to push through a declaration of war on Germany. It does surprise me that considering the pact between Germany and Japan that the USA didn't use the declaration of war on Japan to include the rest of the Axis powers at the same time. For sure Roosevelt wanted it.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 21, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> It does surprise me that considering the pact between Germany and Japan that the USA didn't use the declaration of war on Japan to include the rest of the Axis powers at the same time. For sure Roosevelt wanted it.



Very curious indeed.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 21, 2021)

svalbard said:


> The development of the Nuclear Bomb makes it all moot. That ends the war in Europe regardless of the helping Russia or not.



A number of things put the damper  on their bomb program .  Armaments Minter Albert Speer determined that Germany didn't;  have  the necessary resources  for large scale Atomic bomb  project. They couldn't  build  the Large Cyclotrons which were necessary . Also Nazi Ideology caused many of their best scientists to  emigrate to the US and other places. And there is also the notion that  Werner Heisenberg an other  did everything in his power to scuttle The German bomb program because they  didn't want the Nazi regime to have access to such weapons.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Apr 21, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> A number of things put the damper  on their bomb program .  Armaments Minter Albert Speer determined that Germany didn't;  have  the necessary resources  for large scale Atomic bomb  project. They couldn't  build  the Large Cyclotrons which were necessary . Also Nazi Ideology caused many of their best scientists to  emigrate to the US and other places. And there is also the notion that  Werner Heisenberg an other  did everything in his power to scuttle The German bomb program because they  didn't want the Nazi regime to have access to such weapons.




I agree that (thankfully) the Germans were their own worst enemy when it came to development of the atom bomb. Which is at odds with Hitler's love of overly-complicated weapons that looked great on paper but were too intricate for their own good. And good that others were willing to risk their lives to defy Nazi ideology.

But the issue with these weapons was much more about the delivery than the weapon itself. A rocket packed with biological/chemical weapons can be far more damaging casualty-wise than the atom bombs of their day. If an improved V2 had been targeted  at New York, there's very little the Americans could have done to stop it. a lot more risky to send a B-29 from UK to drop it's payload on Germany.


----------



## Ambrose (Apr 21, 2021)

Germany declared war on the US in support of its ally Japan.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Apr 21, 2021)

Ambrose said:


> Germany declared war on the US in support of its ally Japan.




This is true, but they didn't need to. There was absolutely no benefit in doing so, and it was exactly what Roosevelt and Churchill had been hoping for for the last 2 years.


----------



## reiver33 (Apr 22, 2021)

Hitler’s personality (I’m basing this on the biographies of Guderian, Manstein and Gehlen) was that of a procrastinator with a weak ego. He hated reacting to events and would dither rather than admit the enemy had the initiative.

Declaring war on America was his way of reasserting control on the strategic situation, given that the attack on Moscow had stalled. It wasn’t a treaty obligation, given that Japan didn’t reciprocate by declaring war on the USSR, it was a strategic blunder of mammoth proportions, but indicative of the ‘make it up as we go along’ approach that bedevilled the ‘higher’ levels of German leadership.


----------



## Bren G (Apr 24, 2021)

A better question is : What if aliens decide to colonize earth during WWII? Harry Turtledove has the answer!


----------



## Aquilonian (Apr 25, 2021)

As regards the actual outcome of the war, all three of the Allies (USSR, USA and British Empire) were needed to make this possible. USA supplied the most equipment and money, USSR gave by far the most lives, and Britain held out longest and provided the essential launch point without which it would have been totally unfeasible for the USA to have invaded Europe.

However as regards gaining some sort of victory over Nazi Germany, there's a crucial difference between the USSR and the other Allies, which is that the USSR was fighting an existential conflict. Hitler saw the Russians as sub-humans who mostly needed to be exterminated in order to clear the land for German settlement. By contrast, he admired the British for their success in controlling a vast Empire, and much of the British Elite including the Royals admired him and wanted to make peace. As for the USA, isolationism was a very strong force in US politics at that time, large ethnic groups in USA were hostile to Britain, and important elements of the American Elite were pro-Nazi either ideologically or just because they did good business with them.

So the Russians, unlike their Allies, HAD to fight, question is, what policy changes would have been needed for them to win without outside help? About halfway through the war Stalin reversed his previous policy of persecuting the Orthodox Church, because he needed their support to motivate the people. I think he'd have had to go much further down that road, making it a holy war for the Russian nation, fully reinventing himself as a Christian Tsar and abandoning Marxism or at least altering it out of all recognition. In our time Putin has pretty much taken on the mantle of the Christian Tsars and the CCP has abandoned Communism in all but name, so it's all doable.

The resulting Russian push-back would have been even fiercer and more ruthless than it was in our timeline, a war of extermination against the Germans, leaving Germany largely devastated and depopulated with any survivors retreating to the mountains in the south. In occupied Europe the Communist elements in the Resistance movements would have prevailed so post-war the whole of mainland Europe would have been Communist along Stalinist lines, and would have taken much longer to recover from the war.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 25, 2021)

Aquilonian said:


> As regards the actual outcome of the war, all three of the Allies (USSR, USA and British Empire) were needed to make this possible. USA supplied the most equipment and money, USSR gave by far the most lives, and Britain held out longest and provided the essential launch point without which it would have been totally unfeasible for the USA to have invaded Europe.
> 
> However as regards gaining some sort of victory over Nazi Germany, there's a crucial difference between the USSR and the other Allies, which is that the USSR was fighting an existential conflict. Hitler saw the Russians as sub-humans who mostly needed to be exterminated in order to clear the land for German settlement. By contrast, he admired the British for their success in controlling a vast Empire, and much of the British Elite including the Royals admired him and wanted to make peace. As for the USA, isolationism was a very strong force in US politics at that time, large ethnic groups in USA were hostile to Britain, and important elements of the American Elite were pro-Nazi either ideologically or just because they did good business with them.
> 
> ...



In that scenario  The allies might bring Operation Unthinkable into play .


----------



## Aquilonian (Apr 25, 2021)

Operation Unthinkable was a mad fantasy of Patton's. Certainly the British Army (which like all the WW2 armies was almost all conscripts) would not have stood for invading the Soviet Union. Some of the generals maybe, but the ordinary soldiers would have balked at fighting their way into the USSR. 

British people of my parents' generation, who were adults during WW2, had massive respect for the Soviet Union and especially for the Red Army, who had always been shown in the media as our glorious Allies from summer 1941 onwards. Communism was much more widespread in the UK at that time, it was not unknown for the wife of a Conservative cabinet minister to be a CP member. Even 20 years later when Yuri Gagarin visited the UK he received a hero's welcome- my mother took me into Manchester to see him go through the streets in an open-topped bus cheered by huge crowds. As a little boy, fascinated by space flight as we all were in the 60s, I was just as interested in the Soviet cosmonauts as in the American astronauts.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 25, 2021)

Aquilonian said:


> Operation Unthinkable was a mad fantasy of Patton's. Certainly the British Army (which like all the WW2 armies was almost all conscripts) would not have stood for invading the Soviet Union. Some of the generals maybe, but the ordinary soldiers would have balked at fighting their way into the USSR.
> 
> British people of my parents' generation, who were adults during WW2, had massive respect for the Soviet Union and especially for the Red Army, who had always been shown in the media as our glorious Allies from summer 1941 onwards. Communism was much more widespread in the UK at that time, it was not unknown for the wife of a Conservative cabinet minister to be a CP member. Even 20 years later when Yuri Gagarin visited the UK he received a hero's welcome- my mother took me into Manchester to see him go through the streets in an open-topped bus cheered by huge crowds. As a little boy, fascinated by space flight as we all were in the 60s, I was just as interested in the Soviet cosmonauts as in the American astronauts.



The Russian soldiers  had no choice but to fight. Stalin and his generals  special units of solders  in the Russian army whose  job was to shoot anyone who wouldn't fight or tried to retreat.

Operation unthinkable  would have been a  bloodbath for both sides  had the allies launched it .The Russians would have ultimately lost but , the end result wouldn't  have been with the cost in lives.


----------



## Aquilonian (Apr 26, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> The Russians would have ultimately lost


What's your reasoning behind that assertion, BAYLOR?


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 26, 2021)

Aquilonian said:


> What's your reasoning behind that assertion, BAYLOR?



We had the B29 Bomber  , so their factories and installationS , oil fields and power-grids   wouldn't be out of our reach given we'd also have airbases  bases  in Irag .   We also have the atomic bomb though initially we don't have a enough of them , by the end of 1945 we  would .   The combined US and Royal Navy could have effectively  destroyed whatever naval assets  the Russian s possessed and blockaded their ports.  O nthe battle field the Pershing  Tank was coming online by 1945 and those were more that a match for the T34 tank and the more powerful Stalin Tanks . In the air US and Uk fighter planes were slightly better then anything the Russian possessed. And even all that ,It end up being Pyrrhic  victory for the US and UK  with a massive loss of lives on both sides.  It wouldn't have been worth it.


----------



## Aquilonian (Apr 26, 2021)

Fair enough if the war had been fought by robots not human beings. But the moral and motivation is a crucial factor. The men of the British armed forces would have had no interest in defeating Russia and would have told their officers where to get off. Don't forget that we (the Brits that is) elected a Socialist government towards the end of WW2, with about the biggest majority of any British election win in modern times. And the Russians are intensely patriotic. In how many countries would you hear people singing the national anthem in the street, just for the hell of it, not as part of a demonstration or rally? I've seen that in Russia. Over a million people died in the siege of Leningrad but they didn't give in.


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 26, 2021)

Aquilonian said:


> Fair enough if the war had been fought by robots not human beings. But the moral and motivation is a crucial factor. The men of the British armed forces would have had no interest in defeating Russia and would have told their officers where to get off. Don't forget that we (the Brits that is) elected a Socialist government towards the end of WW2, with about the biggest majority of any British election win in modern times. And the Russians are intensely patriotic. In how many countries would you hear people singing the national anthem in the street, just for the hell of it, not as part of a demonstration or rally? I've seen that in Russia. Over a million people died in the siege of Leningrad but they didn't give in.



Maybe the Russian were supremely Patriotic but not to their supreme leader . Stalin had units of solders set up to shoot any soldiers that either tried to retreat  or wouldn't fight. And  people in Leningrad who so heroically resisted  and suffered died,  Stalin  ruthlessly punished their leaders   after the war, It referred  to as the Leningrad affair.  The Russian in public may have saluted and praised  him in public but in reality hated ,feared and lather him .  These same patriotic Russian would  been all to happy  see Stalin die because  he was a devil.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Apr 26, 2021)

I agree that attacking the Russians would not have been a popular move, but if they had continued to move through Germany and then started to attack the British/US troops the situation would have changed. What kind of a supply line would Stalin's troops have? There was precious little available in Germany itself, and with the destruction of towns and cities, the supply lines would have struggled. On the other hand, the US/British troops in France, Belgium and Holland would be better equipped and better supplied.

It's one thing to force an enemy from your land and push him back until defeated, it's another thing entirely to launch a surprise attack on your allies on their turf.

With the RAF and USAAF, combined with the Royal Navy supplying food, men and tanks along with systematic carpet bombing of Stalin's forces, it's hard to see the Russians achieving victory. On the other hand, with the tenacity, bravery and sheer numbers of Russian ground forces, the likelihood of Britain and US defeating the Russians was pretty low. 

I think that if it had happened , it would have been down to negotiating a more favourable land share. I suspect that the Russians would have kept all the ground they had captured and the centre of Germany would have been declared no-man's land. Almost inevitably it would have led to WW3.

Thankfully none of that happened!


----------



## BAYLOR (Apr 26, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> I agree that attacking the Russians would not have been a popular move, but if they had continued to move through Germany and then started to attack the British/US troops the situation would have changed. What kind of a supply line would Stalin's troops have? There was precious little available in Germany itself, and with the destruction of towns and cities, the supply lines would have struggled. On the other hand, the US/British troops in France, Belgium and Holland would be better equipped and better supplied.
> 
> It's one thing to force an enemy from your land and push him back until defeated, it's another thing entirely to launch a surprise attack on your allies on their turf.
> 
> ...



We had the A-bomb, which we could have used against Stalins  armies if necessary . Unfortunately , the use of that would opened up a very nasty can of worms for the future.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Apr 26, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> We had the A-bomb, which we could have used against Stalins  armies if necessary . Unfortunately , the use of that would opened up a very nasty can of worms for the future.




Yes, but there were very few available, and the RAF and USAAF could carpet/fire bomb just as effectively as atomic bombs at that time.

Having said that, the effect of the dropping of just one of those weapons would make Stalin think twice about attacking. But tbh I don;t think it was ever his intention to do so. It was all about getting a good deal after Germany surrendered.


----------



## CupofJoe (Apr 27, 2021)

Aquilonian said:


> Fair enough if the war had been fought by robots not human beings. But the moral and motivation is a crucial factor. The men of the British armed forces would have had no interest in defeating Russia and would have told their officers where to get off. Don't forget that we (the Brits that is) elected a Socialist government towards the end of WW2, with about the biggest majority of any British election win in modern times. And the Russians are intensely patriotic. In how many countries would you hear people singing the national anthem in the street, just for the hell of it, not as part of a demonstration or rally? I've seen that in Russia. Over a million people died in the siege of Leningrad but they didn't give in.


I've heard it in Paris as well. It was a week or two after the Bataclan attack in 2015 and people were feeling VERY Patriotic.


----------



## HareBrain (Apr 27, 2021)

CupofJoe said:


> I've heard it in Paris as well.



But who wouldn't sing the Marseillaise given half an excuse? It's the only national anthem** with a decent tune and a tempo that wouldn't suit a funeral.

**(that I know of)


----------



## Parson (Apr 27, 2021)

HareBrain said:


> with a decent tune and a tempo that wouldn't suit a funeral.


Having done my share of funerals I'd like to point out that in my experience funeral music is not as predictable as once it might have been. Here, at least, many funerals become "celebration of life" events which can include the music the person felt closest to. So, in some sense, all music can be "funeral" music. But your point about the Marseillaise being an excellent national anthem still stands.


----------



## paranoid marvin (Apr 27, 2021)

One of these days Rule Britannia will replace God Save the Queen/King. Far more upbeat. Or perhaps Jerusalem. Assuming they are still politically acceptable?


----------



## HareBrain (Apr 28, 2021)

Pretty Vacant has a good tempo.


----------



## AE35Unit (Apr 28, 2021)

We'd probably all be speaking German, and anyone with 'defects' would be euthanised


----------



## AE35Unit (Apr 28, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> One of these days Rule Britannia will replace God Save the Queen/King. Far more upbeat. Or perhaps Jerusalem. Assuming they are still politically acceptable?


I like the idea of Jerusalem or Jupiter from the Planets suite


----------



## CupofJoe (Apr 28, 2021)

paranoid marvin said:


> Yes, but there were very few available, and the RAF and USAAF could carpet/fire bomb just as effectively as atomic bombs at that time.
> 
> Having said that, the effect of the dropping of just one of those weapons would make Stalin think twice about attacking. But tbh I don;t think it was ever his intention to do so. It was all about getting a good deal after Germany surrendered.


There is also the resource/Manpower issue. It could take hundreds of Bombers day and night, getting shot at, having accidents and generally getting people killed, to inflict the damage of one small A-bomb. There were only six or seven B29s on the attacks on Japan in 45.


----------



## paranoid marvin (May 1, 2021)

CupofJoe said:


> There is also the resource/Manpower issue. It could take hundreds of Bombers day and night, getting shot at, having accidents and generally getting people killed, to inflict the damage of one small A-bomb. There were only six or seven B29s on the attacks on Japan in 45.




True. It does surprise me that there were so few raids on Japan, although when you have almost 300 planes fire-bombing Tokyo in just one attack, I suppose you don't really need too many. I think it was a case of trying to break the spirit of Japanese high command, even though it hadn't worked with air-raids on Germany or Britain earlier in the war. The atom bomb gave the Japanese a chance for an honourable surrender, as they  now faced a foe that it was impossible to oppose.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 9, 2021)

Joseph Stalin was a mass murdering devil and by rights should've been put on trial for his crimes and hung .


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 10, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> Joseph Stalin was a mass murdering devil and by rights should've been put on trial for his crimes and hung .


I don’t disagree with you but it’s important not to simplify the man because that would lead to a lack of understanding his nature and motivations. If we don’t understand these people, we won’t recognise them for what they are until it is too late.

Stalin was, for example, also a meteorologist, a bank robber in his early bolshevik days, and a poet (at one point very popular in his native Georgia).  There is a story that one of the generals he imprisoned during the purge spent his prison time translating a Georgian poem called The Knight In The Panther Skin into Russian. At the end of each day, the guard would remove his work and return it the next morning, It was covered in red pen corrections. Stalin was the one correcting his work. Like most historical monsters, Stalin was an enigmatic mass of contradictions.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 10, 2021)

Foxbat said:


> I don’t disagree with you but it’s important not to simplify the man because that would lead to a lack of understanding his nature and motivations. If we don’t understand these people, we won’t recognise them for what they are until it is too late.
> 
> Stalin was, for example, also a meteorologist, a bank robber in his early bolshevik days, and a poet (at one point very popular in his native Georgia).  There is a story that one of the generals he imprisoned during the purge spent his prison time translating a Georgian poem called The Knight In The Panther Skin into Russian. At the end of each day, the guard would remove his work and return it the next morning, It was covered in red pen corrections. Stalin was the one correcting his work. Like most historical monsters, Stalin was an enigmatic mass of contradictions.





 His childhood was horrific , his father was a no good drunken ******* who used to beat him  and his mother was, at best, indifferent to him.  He lost his frirst  wife whom he adored and that too affected him .   But , none this excuses him from the choices  he made in his life. When came to power,  he knew the things he was doing were wrong.  He didn't care one iota about about people whose lives he  destroyed and ended . As for his talents , those didn't  make him any less of the monster that he was.


----------



## wearywanderer64 (Aug 10, 2021)

BAYLOR said:


> Not accepted them as allies against Nazi German and, not  give given any aid or supplies . How would have the war have likely progressed had that happened ?


The threat of an atomic bomb would have forced Hitler into a peace treaty. The rest of the world would have fallen into line.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Aug 10, 2021)

wearywanderer64 said:


> The threat of an atomic bomb would have forced Hitler into a peace treaty. The rest of the world would have fallen into line.



Disagree. FIrstly he wouldn't have believed the threat...and even if one had been dropped early enough before Germany collapsed he probably wouldn't have cared. 

According to Speer on March 19th 1945: “Inside the Third Reich,” Hitler then told him: “If the war is lost, the people will be lost also. It is not necessary to worry about what the German people will need for elemental survival. On the contrary, it is best for us to destroy even these things. For the nation has proved to be the weaker, and the future belongs solely to the stronger eastern nations. In any case, only those who are inferior will remain after this struggle, for the good have already been killed.”

While I may suspect Speer of massaging the truth on some accounts of his actions and behaviours during the war, I see no reason why he didn't accurately report this exchange. 

After all Hitler also issued an order for all German infrastructure, around that time, that would have been necessary for the populations survival after the war, to be systematically destroyed so that the allies could not 'take advantage' of it. Atomic bombs would have just accelerated this order. 

At the end he would have probably really wanted Germany to be a radioactive wasteland.

Near the end Hitler was looking for the frankly amazing idea that the Western Allies would join with the Germans and attack the Russians, but when that harebrained idea finally evaporated and the Soviets were parked outside his front door in the bunker, he was never going to accept a surrender, but take the suicide route. (Note also that the allies had announced well before this, that they were only going for unconditional surrender, there would have been no peace treaty offered anyway.)


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 10, 2021)

Talking of WW2, this has left me flabbergasted.
A German pensioner had been given a suspended sentence and a fine of 250 000 euros for stashing war memorabilia in his basement. Had had a variety of nazi items, ammunition, an anti-aircraft gun and……wait for it…..a Panther tank. How on earth did he get this into his basement?

There are something like five working Panthers in the world and they’re worth around £5 million each. Take a look at this pensioner’s…it’s immaculate (although I don’t know if it actually runs). An expert commented that the barrel was corroded but could be sorted in a few days. 








						UPDATE: Sentence Handed Down In Case Of Panther Tank Found In German Pensioner's Basement
					

The court has also made a decision on what the man must do with his collection.




					www.warhistoryonline.com


----------



## AllanR (Aug 10, 2021)

I find it funny that he has to sell his items to a private collector. He seems to be the definition of a private collector. I guess his real crime was to not pay the licence fee?


Foxbat said:


> A German pensioner had been given a suspended sentence and a fine of 250 000 euros for stashing war memorabilia in his basement.


----------



## Foxbat (Aug 10, 2021)

It seems this case is to do with German law and working weapons. The reason I mentioned the gun barrel is because it could quickly be made functional according to the expert. Of course, Germany also has very strict laws regarding nazism (although the man denied being a nazi sympathise). He could possibly  sell to a private collector outside of Germany where the laws are less strict.


----------



## CupofJoe (Aug 11, 2021)

According to another article I read, he used to use the Panther as a snowplough around the local area during really bad snowfalls. 
Snow... Cars... Shermans... It's all the same really


----------



## paeng (Aug 14, 2021)

This reminds me of _Fatherland





_


----------

