@rjpeters70:
Germany got a bastion of anti-communism in Spain who gave 40,000 “volunteers” in Barbarossa. What more you want?
Taking Gibraltar from the British.
What if hitler died?
-
What if the atempt to kill hitler worked out? (The Last one)
-
Here’s a partial answer from a recent BBC News article on state-sponsored assassinations:
“Operation Foxley was typical - the SOE looked at using a sniper to shoot Hitler, and gathered extensive intelligence on the layout of his house at Berchtesgaden. But the plan was cancelled, partly because it was judged unlikely to succeed but also because officials feared it would damage the war effort - they argued that Hitler’s replacement might actually be more rational and more effective in fighting Britain.”
-
Nationalkomitee Freies Deutschland ( National Committee for a Free Germany) would lead Germany then and would try cease war with every party involved…
-
Our skin would be whiter.
-
Rational thinking would happen.
-
@aequitas:
Nationalkomitee Freies Deutschland ( National Committee for a Free Germany) would lead Germany then and would try cease war with every party involved…
We would have a bigger germany, with a bigger army today if they did kill hitler…
-
Prehaps Germany could have ended the War going back to 1914 borders.
-
@ABWorsham:
Prehaps Germany could have ended the War going back to 1914 borders.
yep… that could have happen
-
IF Hitler ahd died in say… 1918.
The Soviet Union would have engulfed Europe. Poland, Germany, France, Italy, Britain, would have been crushed by the RED military machine.
The Americans at the time would NOT have intervened.
Japan likely would have used the Russian threat, to secure the colonial interests of Europe in pacifc as it folded.
The only thing that STOPPED the Soviet Union in WWII was the fact that the ALLIES were landed, with ready troops, organized, well supplied, combat tested and on the frontlines of Europe.
-
IF Hitler ahd died in say… 1918.
The Soviet Union would have engulfed Europe. Poland, Germany, France, Italy, Britain, would have been crushed by the RED military machine.
The Americans at the time would NOT have intervened.
Japan likely would have used the Russian threat, to secure the colonial interests of Europe in pacifc as it folded.
The only thing that STOPPED the Soviet Union in WWII was the fact that the ALLIES were landed, with ready troops, organized, well supplied, combat tested and on the frontlines of Europe.
say he dies in 1944
-
That’s not early enough to matter…
1942, or 1940… Germany might have been able to sue for peace.
-
If you guys are talking about the attempt at the wolfs lair and the bomb I think there was no way at that point Russia was going to stop. The western allies maybe. We will never know.
-
The only thing that STOPPED the Soviet Union in WWII was the fact that the ALLIES were landed, with ready troops, organized, well supplied, combat tested and on the frontlines of Europe.
I would venture to say that the only thing that stopped the soviets once they really started rolling was the nuclear bomb. In a conventional war between the West and the Soviets right after the fall of Germany sees the Soviets rolling over the west in Europe with only the English Channel stopping them from complete European domination followed by Middle Eastern, African and Asian control. IMHO opinion anyways.
-
1943? :?
-
The allies landed in 1943? Germany fell in 1943? I don’t include the Italian campaign as being a significant contribution to the liberation of Europe when compared to the impact of D-Day or the Soviet contribution so no, I don’t think the allies landed in force in Europe in 1943 nor do I believe Germany fell in 1943, do you?
Re-highlighting the context of my posting……
The only thing that STOPPED the Soviet Union in WWII was the fact that the ALLIES were landed, with ready troops, organized, well supplied, combat tested and on the frontlines of Europe
.
I will reword my response to remove any ambiguous phrases. I do realize that the US only had 5 or so deliverable nuclear bombs by Dec 31, 1945 and the first of which was ready only in July-August 1945 and one was used in the Trinity test. Since the Soviets had a direct pipeline into the Manhattan project Stalin was able to formulate his long term plans/actions with the knowledge of what the US was capable of longer term well before the Trinity test. Had the nuclear bomb been a secret to the Soviets, I suspect a hot war between the Soviets and the other allies would have occurred before the Trinity test and before the Soviets knew that their overwhelming conventional power was no match for nukes.
I would venture to say that the only thing that stopped the soviets once they really started rolling vis-a-vis complete domination/digestion of conquests in eastern europe was the nuclear bomb. In a conventional war between the West and the Soviets right after the fall of Germany sees the Soviets rolling over the west in Europe with only the English Channel stopping them from complete European domination followed by Middle Eastern, African and Asian control. IMHO opinion anyways.
-
It’s rather off topic considering the question asked by the original poster, but as far as a potential Soviet attack on Western Europe is concerned, I find it very hard to believe that the nuclear bomb would have stopped Stalin. We’re not talking about a man here who was particularly concerned about the possible death of millions of his soldiers or civilians. Besides, at the time that Stalin would potentially arrive at such a decision, it wasn’t at all clear how devastating the nuclear bomb would be - but it was clear that they wouldn’t be produced by the dozen any time soon.
Say that it’s July 1, 1945. The Trinity test hasn’t happened yet, so nobody knows whether or not the bomb will even work. US troops stationed in Europe are being relocated to the Pacific to finish off Japan, and the USSR military has an overwhelming numerical superiority. If Stalin intended to conquer the West, that would seem like a perfect opportunity.So why didn’t he? I suppose that only historical research could provide the answer, and maybe it already has, now that many the old Soviet archives are accessible - I’m no expert there. But there are two reasons I can think of:
- While the communist doctrine of the first half of the century was aimed at world domination, the typical route to achieve that would have been by means of worker’s revolutions similar to that in Russia itself. The USSR was more than willing to promote that, typically by supporting communist parties around the world. Stalin believed military conflict with the West to be inevitable, but didn’t intend to start an all-out war unless the West had been weakened by internal dissension.
- At the end of World War II, Stalin’s grip on the Soviet Union itself had been severely compromised by the events of the war. During his reign of terror of the late 1930’s, he had been in full control - but the purges of those years had severely weakened the Red Army and the entire administration of the country. The German attack left Stalin with no other choice than to allow more freedom, to loosen the reins to a degree that was required to fight the war in a somewhat effective manner. So he had to delegate power to others to a degree that he wouldn’t have been comfortable with in peace time. The war created celebrities and heroes, and in 1945, Stalin was probably not even in a position to start a war with the West - there would have been a lot of opposition, and it might have led to his downfall. It took Stalin several years to reassert his power - a prime example was the case of the highly popular field marshal Georgy Zhukov, who was relegated to a relatively unimportant post.
-
@Herr:
But there are two reasons I can think of:
- While the communist doctrine of the first half of the century was aimed at world domination, the typical route to achieve that would have been by means of worker’s revolutions similar to that in Russia itself. The USSR was more than willing to promote that, typically by supporting communist parties around the world. Stalin believed military conflict with the West to be inevitable, but didn’t intend to start an all-out war unless the West had been weakened by internal dissension.
- At the end of World War II, Stalin’s grip on the Soviet Union itself had been severely compromised by the events of the war. During his reign of terror of the late 1930’s, he had been in full control - but the purges of those years had severely weakened the Red Army and the entire administration of the country. The German attack left Stalin with no other choice than to allow more freedom, to loosen the reins to a degree that was required to fight the war in a somewhat effective manner. So he had to delegate power to others to a degree that he wouldn’t have been comfortable with in peace time. The war created celebrities and heroes, and in 1945, Stalin was probably not even in a position to start a war with the West - there would have been a lot of opposition, and it might have led to his downfall. It took Stalin several years to reassert his power - a prime example was the case of the highly popular field marshal Georgy Zhukov, who was relegated to a relatively unimportant post.
There’s another reason to add for not going to war against the UK/US: Lend Lease aid to the Soviet Union. The Soviets were receiving key aid from the UK/US to conduct a modern campaign against Germany, such as trucks, radios and other war supplies.
-
The soviets really had no plans to attack the allies when the war was going on, but after 1947 things would had been different with no nukes on the US side I think. 1947 I think is really when the cold war started and the serious differences the allies had came to a head.
Had Hitler died and the allies formed some agreement with Germany to purge the nazis and bring them into the western sphere then……the soviets would have a reason to war with the west.
-
@Herr:
It’s rather off topic considering the question asked by the original poster, but as far as a potential Soviet attack on Western Europe is concerned, I find it very hard to believe that the nuclear bomb would have stopped Stalin. We’re not talking about a man here who was particularly concerned about the possible death of millions of his soldiers or civilians. Besides, at the time that Stalin would potentially arrive at such a decision, it wasn’t at all clear how devastating the nuclear bomb would be - but it was clear that they wouldn’t be produced by the dozen any time soon.
Say that it’s July 1, 1945. The Trinity test hasn’t happened yet, so nobody knows whether or not the bomb will even work. US troops stationed in Europe are being relocated to the Pacific to finish off Japan, and the USSR military has an overwhelming numerical superiority. If Stalin intended to conquer the West, that would seem like a perfect opportunity.So why didn’t he? I suppose that only historical research could provide the answer, and maybe it already has, now that many the old Soviet archives are accessible - I’m no expert there. But there are two reasons I can think of:
- While the communist doctrine of the first half of the century was aimed at world domination, the typical route to achieve that would have been by means of worker’s revolutions similar to that in Russia itself. The USSR was more than willing to promote that, typically by supporting communist parties around the world. Stalin believed military conflict with the West to be inevitable, but didn’t intend to start an all-out war unless the West had been weakened by internal dissension.
- At the end of World War II, Stalin’s grip on the Soviet Union itself had been severely compromised by the events of the war. During his reign of terror of the late 1930’s, he had been in full control - but the purges of those years had severely weakened the Red Army and the entire administration of the country. The German attack left Stalin with no other choice than to allow more freedom, to loosen the reins to a degree that was required to fight the war in a somewhat effective manner. So he had to delegate power to others to a degree that he wouldn’t have been comfortable with in peace time. The war created celebrities and heroes, and in 1945, Stalin was probably not even in a position to start a war with the West - there would have been a lot of opposition, and it might have led to his downfall. It took Stalin several years to reassert his power - a prime example was the case of the highly popular field marshal Georgy Zhukov, who was relegated to a relatively unimportant post.
You’ve raised excellent points. To add to what you’ve written, the Soviet army had become disorganized toward the end of the war in Europe. They were more interested in robbing, raping, shooting civilians, getting drunk, etc. than they were in remaining a disciplined fighting force. There was a celebratory atmosphere which made it unfit for a major new conflict–at least at the time. Another problem it faced was a lack of supplies. While the soldiers could eat by stealing what they needed from civilians, ammunition was another matter.
Stalin was a man who believed in thorough preparations for war. During the '30s, he purged his army of anyone he suspected might prefer Nazism to communism. (Mostly people on the right.) Leading up to a war with the United States, a different sort of purge would have been used. The United States and Israel had formed a strong alliance. Stalin suspected that Jewish Zionists (read: Jews generally) might prefer an American victory to a Soviet one. In the early '50s, Stalin began show trials of Jewish doctors–trials which supposedly unveiled a Zionist conspiracy aimed against the Soviet Union. It is felt that, had Stalin lived, these trials would have been expanded to target Jews generally. It has also been noted that during this time, Stalin ordered the construction of two large new concentration camps. While the intended victims of these camps are not known with certainty, they were widely rumored to be for use against Jews.
The extermination of the Soviet Union’s Jewish population would have been one of two facets of Stalin’s overall effort. The other would have been an invasion of Western Europe. The MiG had been specifically designed to shoot down American strategic bombers. (Though it was also effective at destroying American jet fighters.) While the Sabre was somewhat better than the MiG, the U.S.'s other jets were not nearly as good. And the Soviets had a lot more MiGs than the U.S. had Sabres.
Evidence suggests that Stalin allowed the Korean War to be launched as a test of American military readiness. The U.S. failed this test, which made Stalin comfortable going forward with his plans to invade Western Europe. The Truman administration realized that the U.S. conventional forces in the area were no match for their Soviet counterparts–especially not after the nations of Eastern Europe had had their armies recruited, trained, and integrated into the Warsaw Pact. (The addition of Soviet satellite state forces to the communists’ army was another reason for delaying the communist invasion of the rest of Europe.)
Because the NATO conventional forces in Germany were no match for their Warsaw Pact counterparts, the Truman administration’s plan was to respond to any Soviet invasion by using nuclear weapons on the Red Army as it moved deeper into West Germany. Stalin understood this, and his plan was to use MiG jets to shoot down American bombers before they could deliver their payloads. In any case the U.S. did not have very many nuclear weapons to use. (This was before the era of ICBMs, so any nation which could shoot down enemy bombers effectively enough could defend itself against nuclear attack.)
Stalin died before putting these plans into effect. Had he lived another five years, it’s likely the Soviet Union would have invaded Western Europe, and that the Jews within Soviet territory would have been exterminated.
-
So why didn’t he?
I just finished reading the book “Patton’s Last Days”
In HIS OWN WORDS, Patton said
"“I understand the situation. Their (the Soviet) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof – that’s their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived on the land coming down. There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back.”
Although the Russians pushed into Europe for the Victory, they were in absolutely NO SHAPE to go up against the Allies and Nazi Remnant forces.
Suggested Topics
