What if we had stood united with Hitler against Russia......

[August]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

And just because the Cold War was cold and not as "Hollywood" story as the WW II, it should be more celebrated as the real liberation of Europe of totalitarism.

The cold war was about much more than just Europe, but yeah i agree.

[Iceman]

What if we had stood united with Hitler against Russia......?

We would be burning in hell right along side of him now.

any more questions?

P.S. When you say "We" in what if we stood united...you mean Europe or who exactly?

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Iceman

What if we had stood united with Hitler against Russia......?

We would be burning in hell right along side of him now.

any more questions?

P.S. When you say "We" in what if we stood united...you mean Europe or who exactly?

No nicely said.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by August

I seriously doubt the western Allies could have beaten the Soviets militarily in 1945-46, especially with the war in the Pacific still going strong.

We did have the atom bomb but not very many of them and it would have taken a lot to wipe out the huge Soviet army that was already in Germany and eastern europe. I think long before we could have built and deployed them in sufficient numbers to do so, the Soviets would have been so closely engaged with our troops their use would have hurt us as much as them.

You are forgetting the west had basically naval supremacy over the Atlantic after VE day. The Soviet Navy we know today didn't exist. Imagine an amphibious assault from the White Sea and Baltic followed by an invasion of Kamchatka. All of a sudden those massive forces in Germany have to worry about losing their Capital. Who would win in a race? Patton from Leningrad or Arkhangel’sk to Moscow or who ever the Soviets had in Berlin to Moscow? My money is on Patton.

[August]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

You are forgetting the west had basically naval supremacy over the Atlantic after VE day. The Soviet Navy we know today didn't exist. Imagine an amphibious assault from the White Sea and Baltic followed by an invasion of Kamchatka. All of a sudden those massive forces in Germany have to worry about losing their Capital. Who would win in a race? Patton from Leningrad or Arkhangel’sk to Moscow or who ever the Soviets had in Berlin to Moscow? My money is on Patton.

Patton would have been tied up in Western Europe defending it from said army which would immediately have gone on the attack at the commencement of hostilities and which, BTW, was in more than just Berlin but rather extended on a solid in depth front from all the way down to the Baltic on up to the Norweigan border. That's not something you're going to just bypass....

But more importantly, that's not all the forces the Soviets had at their disposal either. Remember, they were able to mount a pretty massive invasion of their own over 3000 miles away against the Japanese in Mongolia just a couple months later and I don't think they stripped their western front to do it.

Now i'm not saying the Allies, especially reinforced by the remnants of the German army, couldn't have kept control of western Europe and maybe even eventually ejected the Soviets from eastern Europe, but take Moscow? You're talking about one very, very hard fight in a war where we'd be the aggressors, not them.

[Sixpack]

Originally Posted by Iceman

What if we had stood united with Hitler against Russia......?

We would be burning in hell right along side of him now.

any more questions?

P.S. When you say "We" in what if we stood united...you mean Europe or who exactly?

We is Europe very early 1940, meaning the time when Germany were about to Blitzkrieg all over continental Europe and Europe could have still freely decided to accept the Fuehrer as their supreme leader to take on the Soviet Union. For sure at that point in time conquest of the SU would have been certain.

Are Alexander the Great, Caesar and Napoleon burning in hell ? Maybe they are, but that doesnt stop Hollywood making heroic movies about them and people admiring them.

What sets Hitler apart from the other conquerors ? Yes indeed, the Holocaust.

But weird enough evil totalitarian dictatorship didn't stop the West from bonding with Stalin as allies in WW2.

[TLAM Strike]

You’re forgetting the massive amount of airpower the West had at its disposal. Look at parts of Normandy days after the landing. Every road the Germans tried to use they got attacked by P-47s. If the US ramped up production of the F-80 Shooting Star the Red Airforce would have been in serious trouble (the F-80, F-8F Bearcat and FR-1 Fireball would have been at a fairly big advantage against the La-7 ‘Fin’) and we could have done to the Soviet Union just what we did to Germany.

[Sixpack]

:hmm:

May I remind you that early 1940 USA was nowhere and its military grossly insufficient to match Germany's.

Germany and the rest of the world in 40 was a far different story compared to 44 around D-Day.

But I think I must have missed the AMEURASIA alternative history now being discussed here, if so I beg your pardon .

[Sixpack]

Maybe I should have said late 38/early 39....

Read:

http://www.thirdreich.net/AH_Man_of_Year.html

Quote:
But the figure of Adolf Hitler strode over a cringing Europe with all the swagger of a conqueror. Not the mere fact that the Fuhrer brought 10,500,000 more people (7,000,000 Austrians, 3,500,000 Sudetens) under his absolute rule made him the Man of 1938. Japan during the same time added tens of millions of Chinese to her empire. More significant was the fact Hitler became in 1938 the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today.

His shadow fell far beyond Germany's frontier. Small, neighboring States (Denmark, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, The Balkans, Luxembourg, The Netherlands) feared to offend him. In France Nazi pressure was in part responsible for some of the post-Munich anti-democratic decrees. Fascism had intervened openly in Spain, had fostered a revolt in Brazil, was covertly aiding revolutionary movements in Rumania, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania. In Finland a foreign minister had to resign under Nazi pressure. Throughout eastern Europe after Munich the trend was toward less freedom, more dictatorship. In the U.S. alone did democracy feel itself strong enough at year's end to give Hitler his come-uppance.

The Fascintern, with Hitler in the driver's seat, with Mussolini, Franco and the Japanese military cabal riding behind, emerged in 1938 as an international, revolutionary movement. Rant as he might against the machinations of international Communism and international Jewry, or rave as he would that he was just a Pan-German trying to get all the Germans back in one nation, Fuhrer Hitler had himself become the world's No. 1 International Revolutionist--so much so that if the oft-predicted struggle between Fascism and Communism now takes place it will be only because two revolutionist dictators, Hitler and Stalin, are too big to let each other live in the same world.

[kiwi_2005]

Hitler would of by then have the atomic bomb - and would of used it more often than what the US did. In fact i think it would of been the end of the world for us all.

Theres been claims that Hitler was bent on destroying the german people as well. :hmm:

[STEED]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

Hitler would of by then have the atomic bomb -

What after kicking out all those scientists due to racial issues, the result of this was Germany gave the bomb away to the Allies just as well for us. German scientists left in the country had calculated that the critical mass was something like 50 tons for Uranium. Result by their own calculations could not make the bomb in one year, because nobody could get that material within a thousand years with the available methods. Meaning they got their sums wrong.

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by Sixpack

But weird enough evil totalitarian dictatorship didn't stop the West from bonding with Stalin as allies in WW2.

Lesser of two weevils?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Iceman

Lesser of two weevils?

He who would pun would pick a pocket. :P

[CCIP]

Nothing weird of that, actually. The Soviet Union had rather limited ambitions when it came to French and British interests. Hitler, on the other hand... It wasn't Russia who invaded France twice during the previous century :hmm:

Stalin also espoused the doctrine of "Communism in one country", and even though he supported global revolution, he never stated that the USSR planned for a global war with the goal of global supremacy. Or racial superiority. Hitler, on the other hand... It wasn't Stalin who wrote Mein Kampf. And to this day there exists no concrete evidence for Soviet plans of global conquest, before or after WWII.

I find this claim

-Russia prosperous like the rest of Europe; and a real part of the European empire. A vast European common market !

deeply offensive, I'm sorry

Tell this to my grandfather, whose brother - a pure-blooded Novgorod Russian, was taken away to a labour camp and never returned, and whose best friend was killed by the Germans during the occupation - for no other reason that they were Russian. And that was in 1941 when the war seemed to be nearly won from the German perspective. The atrocities committed by Germans in Russia are so well-documented, and so repulsive, that I don't think there needs to be any other option.

There would be no Russia as a nation. The holocaust would have been a few dozen million more deadly. There is proof beyond all doubt that Hitler would have destroyed Russians and other slavs with reckless abandon (there were charts, for crying out loud, stating exactly how many of these people were to be killed and how many sent for slave labour!).

To me, this is a signal of deeply-ingrained Russophobia that still exists in the West. Apparently, German domination of Europe and slaughter of millions of Slavic peoples is still considered a viable option by some - as long as it got rid of the USSR. Which, by the way, had done precious little harm to the West all through the cold war. It's the others who paid the price. And, apparently, some have gotten a little too comfortable with the idea of others paying the price.

[Sixpack]

S! CCIP, you're late....

Yes indeed, I had the nerve to explore the boundaries of this forum with this thread and I am not too proud to say that I am sorry if I deeply offended you in the process. But like I have stated, 'what if' history scenarios can be painful when one has grown accustomed to classic Hollywood stories and endings (and fond of Maddox'IL-2?). I am sure the Avon Lady wasnt thrilled either.

We have the luxury in this day and age to play UBoot sims and play politically incorrect what if wars on our PCs enjoying the heck out of 'em. So really please, let's not be too oversensitive now....

Dutch people have never been known for Russiaphobia and that sure as sin includes me.

Never have I (not as a kid in the 70ies and 80ies nor in hindsight) believed the Soviet were to invade W-Europe or drop a big one on us. Yet they were occupying Eastern Europe with iron hand.

My what if scenario indeed dismissed nationalistic Soviet and Jewish interests as inferior to the imperial Eurasian cause...