A WWII Hypothetical

2,835 Views | 23 Replies | Last: 6 yr ago by Ulrich
That One Guy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What would the world look like today if the US had backed Germany in the war and won?
Jason Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I guess no communist revolution for one thing. However, this question is strange. We supported countries that were attacked, then returned the territory to these nations after the war. I can't comprehend us supporting the nazis in any reality and so probably not the best person to spitball on this one.

Maybe if question was what If the nazis had defeated Russia and GB, before we entered the war?
ReloadAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Another good question is what would have happened had Hitler not invaded Russia and had more resources to prevent an attempted Allied invasion of Western Europe?
Maximus_Meridius
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ReloadAg said:

Another good question is what would have happened had Hitler not invaded Russia and had more resources to prevent an attempted Allied invasion of Western Europe?
This one's been debated a lot, actually, with most thinking that Stalin was going to invade regardless...Hitler just beat him to the punch.
ReloadAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Makes sense
Ag_EQ12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Did you mean WW1? I'd have a hard time imagining any scenario where the US backed Nazi Germany.
aeroag14
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ReloadAg said:

Another good question is what would have happened had Hitler not invaded Russia and had more resources to prevent an attempted Allied invasion of Western Europe?

I am not even sure if that is the best question. If he doesn't invade, as is said above, Stalin eventually invades Germany. With the sheer resources and man power of the soviet union I cant imagine the Germans in the east outlasting the continual onslaught of war coming from Russia.

I, personally, think the most interesting question is "What if the Nazis had captured Moscow?". At their closest point they were something like 12 miles from the Kremlin.
Maximus_Meridius
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aeroag14 said:

ReloadAg said:

Another good question is what would have happened had Hitler not invaded Russia and had more resources to prevent an attempted Allied invasion of Western Europe?

I am not even sure if that is the best question. If he doesn't invade, as is said above, Stalin eventually invades Germany. With the sheer resources and man power of the soviet union I cant imagine the Germans in the east outlasting the continual onslaught of war coming from Russia.

I, personally, think the most interesting question is "What if the Nazis had captured Moscow?". At their closest point they were something like 12 miles from the Kremlin.
Same exact thing. Napoleon held Moscow for a time, if I recall correctly. It's keeping Moscow that appears to be tricky...
aeroag14
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The importance of taking Moscow isn't that they would have Moscow, its that they eliminate the Russian military threat. Sure there is going to be resistance within the soviet people. But how would that possibly be on the scale of what the Russian army actually was during that time frame?

Without an organized Russian threat or army to continually fight in the east, how many more resources does hitler have to devote to The west.

Is that enough to launch an assault on England? If so, does the US ever enter the European theater?
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't think the Germans would have ever knocked the Soviets out of the war even if they took and held Moscow. The Soviets would have just kept moving East. And then you have all that land mass to occupy.

The best bet for German invasion of England was in 1940 when they had the BEF pinned on the coast and had been ready for a channel crossing as the next phase....

America allied with the German's? I cannot see that happening even in retrospect. Not after WWI.
BQ_90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A more plausible what if would be what if Japan attacked or at least caused enough trouble to hold those Russian army troops from going west to fight Germany? Would they have just left Japan to have all the territory in the east?
Old Jock 1997
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There was never a question who we were backing in WWII.

Different story in WWI. What changed the tide was Germany's attempts to convince Mexico to invade the SW US.
Post removed:
by user
BQ_90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Old Jock 1997 said:

There was never a question who we were backing in WWII.

Different story in WWI. What changed the tide was Germany's attempts to convince Mexico to invade the SW US.
we where selling arms to France and Germany. I think Germany attacking our ships had more to do with us getting involved than the Mexico stuff.
Old Jock 1997
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Definitely agree. I think the Mexico recruitment was the final straw for Wilson to seek declaration.
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JJMt said:

Quote:

I don't think the Germans would have ever knocked the Soviets out of the war even if they took and held Moscow. The Soviets would have just kept moving East. And then you have all that land mass to occupy.
What if they had captured and/or killed Stalin while taking Moscow? I've read some historians that think that the Soviets would have collapsed if Stalin had been captured or killed. One of the weaknesses of the cult of personality, I suppose.
Regardless if they had killed him or not, the Germans basically screwed themselves when they started to treat the Baltic states and the Ukraine as conquered territory. Had they been more like the Americans and Brits in France in 1944 the outcome may have been a tad different.
oysterbayAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If Barbarossa was successful, the war would have lasted at least a few years more and Allied casualties would have been much greater until we dropped the Bomb on Berlin !
option short side
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rabid Cougar said:

JJMt said:

Quote:

I don't think the Germans would have ever knocked the Soviets out of the war even if they took and held Moscow. The Soviets would have just kept moving East. And then you have all that land mass to occupy.
What if they had captured and/or killed Stalin while taking Moscow? I've read some historians that think that the Soviets would have collapsed if Stalin had been captured or killed. One of the weaknesses of the cult of personality, I suppose.
Regardless if they had killed him or not, the Germans basically screwed themselves when they started to treat the Baltic states and the Ukraine as conquered territory. Had they been more like the Americans and Brits in France in 1944 the outcome may have been a tad different.
Absolutely agreed. The first few weeks the Russians were treating the Germans as liberators.
dcAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We would have then had to go to war with Germany.
cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The only reason backing Russia instead of Germany was an easy decision is 1) Roosevelt was a Commie, and 2) Germany looked like they would be scarier first, before Russia became scarier.

Russia was more evil. More powerful. More of a long term threat. More of an ideological threat. But Germany was on the cusp of controlling all of Europe first, so there is no way we could ignore Germany.

If Germany had won Europe, it is hard to say whether history would be worse than the Cold War or not.
option short side
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cbr said:

The only reason backing Russia instead of Germany was an easy decision is 1) Roosevelt was a Commie, and 2) Germany looked like they would be scarier first, before Russia became scarier.

Russia was more evil. More powerful. More of a long term threat. More of an ideological threat. But Germany was on the cusp of controlling all of Europe first, so there is no way we could ignore Germany.

If Germany had won Europe, it is hard to say whether history would be worse than the Cold War or not.
1) FDR was not a communist 2)True Germany did appear to be a bigger threat.

In hindsight the Soviet Union was more powerful but nobody thought that in 1941. Stalin's Officer purge coupled with their poor performance in the Winter War, the Soviet Union still looked like a military novice.

Russia being more evil is subjective. Certainly Stalin was a mad man who killed more of his people than Hitler. However, Hitler attempted to systematically eliminate a group of people worldwide. The Cold War period was actually one of the most peaceful times in world history and I believe a Nazi Europe would certainly have been worse. For one, the Germans would have had a much stronger and dynamic economy than the Soviets just for the fact that they weren't communist.

Old Jock 1997
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
option short side said:

cbr said:

The only reason backing Russia instead of Germany was an easy decision is 1) Roosevelt was a Commie, and 2) Germany looked like they would be scarier first, before Russia became scarier.

Russia was more evil. More powerful. More of a long term threat. More of an ideological threat. But Germany was on the cusp of controlling all of Europe first, so there is no way we could ignore Germany.

If Germany had won Europe, it is hard to say whether history would be worse than the Cold War or not.
1) FDR was not a communist 2)True Germany did appear to be a bigger threat.

In hindsight the Soviet Union was more powerful but nobody thought that in 1941. Stalin's Officer purge coupled with their poor performance in the Winter War, the Soviet Union still looked like a military novice.

Russia being more evil is subjective. Certainly Stalin was a mad man who killed more of his people than Hitler. However, Hitler attempted to systematically eliminate a group of people worldwide. The Cold War period was actually one of the most peaceful times in world history and I believe a Nazi Europe would certainly have been worse. For one, the Germans would have had a much stronger and dynamic economy than the Soviets just for the fact that they weren't communist.




The Cold War was peaceful? Im pretty sure the Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese would disagree quite passionately.
option short side
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Old Jock 1997 said:

option short side said:

cbr said:

The only reason backing Russia instead of Germany was an easy decision is 1) Roosevelt was a Commie, and 2) Germany looked like they would be scarier first, before Russia became scarier.

Russia was more evil. More powerful. More of a long term threat. More of an ideological threat. But Germany was on the cusp of controlling all of Europe first, so there is no way we could ignore Germany.

If Germany had won Europe, it is hard to say whether history would be worse than the Cold War or not.
1) FDR was not a communist 2)True Germany did appear to be a bigger threat.

In hindsight the Soviet Union was more powerful but nobody thought that in 1941. Stalin's Officer purge coupled with their poor performance in the Winter War, the Soviet Union still looked like a military novice.

Russia being more evil is subjective. Certainly Stalin was a mad man who killed more of his people than Hitler. However, Hitler attempted to systematically eliminate a group of people worldwide. The Cold War period was actually one of the most peaceful times in world history and I believe a Nazi Europe would certainly have been worse. For one, the Germans would have had a much stronger and dynamic economy than the Soviets just for the fact that they weren't communist.




The Cold War was peaceful? Im pretty sure the Chinese, Koreans, and Vietnamese would disagree quite passionately.
and the Africans, Cubans etc. What I said was the Cold War was one of the most peaceful times in world history. The Soviets and the United States realized war was not in their best interests economically, politically, or in terms of actual human survival. I would say the world was very lucky that there were only regional conflicts associated with all the Independence movements following World War II.
Old Jock 1997
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I would argue that might be the case through the narrow lens of the West. (And really, for us, it wasn't all that peaceful, though I suppose if you are comparing it to the 30-40 preceding years, then relatively speaking, it was.) Globally, I would argue it wasn't peaceful at all, though certainly we took ourselves to the brink of nuclear holocaust more than once but managed to back away just in time.
Ulrich
How long do you want to ignore this user?
IIRC Steven Pinker did some math on war-related deaths by century by percentage of population, and the 20th century was a low one even with WWI and WWII. There has always been a LOT of violence. What we have now is much better knowledge of the deaths and wars going on at all times thanks to the 24 hour multimedia news. We're inundated with every little thing. Korea, Vietnam, and others of the post-WWII era were small regional wars in a big, big world with a lot of people.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.