Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 49 of 49

Thread: What if we didn't ally with USSR in 1941?

  1. #46
    Regular Vargas's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Apr 15
    Location
    Maryland, USA.
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by tbm3fan View Post
    Just reading an article about Okinawa. It said that if you total up all the American casualties of killed, wounded, and shell shocked you get a total of 83,000 men. When compared to Japanese casualties you get a ratio of 1:1.2. At the time it was thought there were 4 million Japanese waiting for an invasion and there were really 6 million waiting. Doing the math and you get an unbelievable number of American casualties which is what the Japanese High Command wanted. A war of attrition where we would sue for peace and they could preserve themselves. That many casualties would have stunned the American population and no doubt they would have demanded an end themselves.
    That is true. There were close to 400 thousand American dead at World War II. And the highest death toll that United States ever took was in the Secession War, with 620 thousand people. I believe that for the United States to procure a white peace (nobody takes anything or loses anything) or at least let them keep Korea and give back what they held in China to the Chinese, it wouldn't take more than 1~1,5 million deaths. And This wouldn't take much more in the Japanese Mainland, specially if you take into consideration that the bombings there probably would diminish in power and frequency because most of the fight would be in Urban environments and at that time there was no precision bombings.

  2. #47
    Regular Vargas's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Apr 15
    Location
    Maryland, USA.
    Posts
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by MilkToast View Post
    If we had not allied with the USSR, the lend lease program, which supplied large numbers of trucks, tanks, and equipment for the Soviets would not have happened. Russia at the time was a third rate industrial power, and the Germans would likely have taken Moscow in '42, and then pushed Stalin (if he hadn't been captured at Moscow, where he refused to leave) back to the Urals. The Soviets would have sued for peace, similar to WW1. A big factor would have been how much territory the Germans and Finns gave back to the USSR after the cease fire, and if Japan would be granted Eastern Siberia. The USSR might have turned into a German puppet state and been remade.

    That's a lot of hostile territory to hold though, and the amount of troops the Germans would have been able to remove from the area and turn toward the west for defense would be an interesting debate. You're talking about +10,000 sq miles and 200 million people (counting Poland, France, the Balkans, Norway, and former USSR) that you have to keep in check, all the while beating off aircraft from the West.

    Bottom line is that it was probably for the best that we did make a deal with Stalin.
    I think that if you read Mein Kampf and take into consideration Hitler's ideas and actions overtime, he really talks and believed of expanding to the East, where the lands were still of a low population density.
    However, he really despised the Austrian Empire or Austria-Hungary, that had more than enough lebensraum but was a multi-ethnic fest. Every thing that he did in peace time, and also in war doesn't contradict this notion:
    He declared Alsace Lorraine again as part of the Reich, but he did not invade Switzerland or Italy to get the South Tyrol back. His main goal was to make a Reich with all of the Germans possible inside of it and connected by land.

    If you take that into consideration you will understand his despise for colonies and also that he wouldn't annex any big chunk of land that there wasn't at least a significant minority of Germans that could increase in population and germanize the other Europeans there over long periods of time. Taking that into consideration, I believe he would make the Soviets cut their Army to less than half and pay reparations to Germany, but would not take actual land out of them.
    At the same time, he would probably give independence - even if only as a puppet state - to Ukraine and possible Belarus. This, together with the very diminished Poland (He would expand significantly further than the 1914 borders) would be buffer countries if the Soviets ever tried to take that territory back and would raise their own armies. That would make it even longer and harder for the Soviets to take that land back, what they might try to do some decades after.

    Europe would look almost exactly like this:

    Attachment 39601

  3. #48
    Regular
    Join Date
    23 Jul 14
    Posts
    54
    What if America hadn't traded with Germany? How many Russians wouldn't of died?

    But the heartbreaking truth is that a number of financial and industrial figures of World War II and several members of the government served the cause of money before the cause of patriotism. While aiding the United States' war effort, they also aided Nazi Germany's.I first came across this fact in 1978 when I was declassifying documents in the course of writing a biography that dealt with motion picture star Errol Flynn's Nazi associations. In the National Archives Diplomatic Records Room I found numerous cross-references to prominent figures who, I had always assumed, were entirely committed to the American cause, yet who had been marked down for suspected subversive activities.
    https://libcom.org/library/allied-mu...ny-world-war-2

  4. #49
    New Member
    Join Date
    30 Jul 16
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    8
    Because in 1939 Britain and France had (finally!) realised that Nazi Germany was aggressive and expansionist and planned to take over the whole of Europe, and was powerful enough to do it if nobody stopped them.

    On the other hand, nobody back then really took Soviet Russia seriously. Oh, they didn't trust Stalin, and were wary of Communism; but everybody - both the Germans and the Western Allies - thought that the USSR would be useless in a fight. They could defend themselves well enough, simply by retreating into the steppes and letting the Russian winter do its work, but they were no big threat to the rest of Europe. The military might the USSR showed in 1941-45 came as a nasty surprise to everybody.

    So the alliance Britain and France made with Poland was specifically directed against Hitler. It was a line in the sand, saying "Attack the Poles, and you'll have to face us too." It wasn't about Poland as such; Poland was just the excuse. (They tried to make a similar deal with Romania at the same time).

    As for the Winter War, some people in Britain did say that they ought to go to Finland's defence. But since they were already at war with Germany, and Germany had a far larger army than Britain and was winning the war on all fronts, then picking a fight with the Soviets at the same time would have been suicidal.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. A non-nuclear USSR
    By VarSity in forum Warfare in the Modern Age
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08 Nov 08,, 00:24
  2. Lies about the USSR
    By agent09 in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 06 Jun 08,, 15:55
  3. 11 December 1941
    By VarSity in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 18 Dec 07,, 19:22
  4. 1941 - Annihilated
    By Feanor in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 14 Nov 07,, 00:27

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •