Russia would have lost WW2 if they traded allies with Germany

[RandomPoster]

If Russia was allied with Italy and Japan, they would have lost to the US, England, Germany, and France. The allies would have taken Italy out of the war in six months, ganged up on Russia with a massive Operation Barbarossa reinforced with millions of US, French, and British soldiers joining the Wehrmacht, who would now have a much, much, much better supply system to go along with the millions of reinforcements. The US would keep Japan busy while they finished off Russia and smash them after Russia was finished.

Russia's performance in WW2 is nowhere near as impressive as it is made out to be. They had way too much trouble with a country a fraction of their size who had declared war on the entire planet.

 

[williepete]

Two questions:

1. Were you scared by a history book at an early age?

2. Why is this in the History section?

 

[JGalt]

Russia did get their butts kicked pretty badly by the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War. It was only because of Teddy Roosevelt's negotiating a treaty that they got out of the war without further humiliation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Third Army would have made short work of Stakeys beloved USSR

 

[harmonica]

Russia was too big/too populated to be taken quickly
why don't we just throw in South America also into the Allies side??
and Central America....and Africa..how about that?

or better yet--we could have South America, Central Amercia and Africa on Russia's side?
then the Allies would've been defeated--for ''sure''

 

[harmonica]

how about Russia building an Abomb before the US?? how about that?? surely the Allies would be defeated ....o--let's add a little global warming to the equation

 

[Picaro]

I agree the Soviet Union's contribution was grossly over-rated; they only stayed in the war because of early British aid and Lend-Lease. They were out of it by the Battle of Moscow, and would have had to sue for terms without the promise of future Allied aid.

I'm not sure what the first part of the OP is about, it's kind of confused. But, the fact is, even with an incompetent lunatic like Hitler running the war for Germany, they effectively crushed Stalin with a much smaller military.

 

[harmonica]

I agree the Soviet Union's contribution was grossly over-rated; they only stayed in the war because of early British aid and Lend-Lease. They were out of it by the Battle of Moscow, and would have had to sue for terms without the promise of future Allied aid.

I'm not sure what the first part of the OP is about, it's kind of confused. But, the fact is, even with an incompetent lunatic like Hitler running the war for Germany, they effectively crushed Stalin with a much smaller military.

there is no way Germany could've defeated Russia--even without US/Brit help
ever look at the size of Russia?
it's population compared to Germany?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Russia's performance in WW2 is nowhere near as impressive as it is made out to be. They had way too much trouble with a country a fraction of their size who had declared war on the entire planet.

Uh, Nazi Germany wasn't the only one attacking Soviets in Operation Barbarossa, so was Italy, Romania, Hungary, Finland, Slovakia, and Croatia....

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

I agree the Soviet Union's contribution was grossly over-rated; they only stayed in the war because of early British aid and Lend-Lease. They were out of it by the Battle of Moscow, and would have had to sue for terms without the promise of future Allied aid.

I'm not sure what the first part of the OP is about, it's kind of confused. But, the fact is, even with an incompetent lunatic like Hitler running the war for Germany, they effectively crushed Stalin with a much smaller military.

Actually, Soviets made the Nazi German war effort possible by supplying them massive amounts of resources, once those resources ran dry, Nazi Germany was bound to fail...It was merely a matter of time.

 

[Picaro]

I agree the Soviet Union's contribution was grossly over-rated; they only stayed in the war because of early British aid and Lend-Lease. They were out of it by the Battle of Moscow, and would have had to sue for terms without the promise of future Allied aid.

I'm not sure what the first part of the OP is about, it's kind of confused. But, the fact is, even with an incompetent lunatic like Hitler running the war for Germany, they effectively crushed Stalin with a much smaller military.

there is no way Germany could've defeated Russia--even without US/Brit help
ever look at the size of Russia?
it's population compared to Germany?

Most of the population lived in the western part, for one, and so was most of its industrial base. With more astute leadership and a better strategists in charge, they most certainly could have easily crushed the Soviets. Population sizes don't mean squat in modern warfare. The Soviet losses, even with almost total air superiority, were massive, even against old men and children.

The British ran India with some 10,000 people, after all, and that was long before WW I.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you imagine had Third Army reconstituted the 70 German divisions in Europe, getting their factories up to full functioning, denied the USSR Air Force fuel?

 

[Picaro]

I agree the Soviet Union's contribution was grossly over-rated; they only stayed in the war because of early British aid and Lend-Lease. They were out of it by the Battle of Moscow, and would have had to sue for terms without the promise of future Allied aid.

I'm not sure what the first part of the OP is about, it's kind of confused. But, the fact is, even with an incompetent lunatic like Hitler running the war for Germany, they effectively crushed Stalin with a much smaller military.

Actually, Soviets made the Nazi German war effort possible by supplying them massive amounts of resources, once those resources ran dry, Nazi Germany was bound to fail...It was merely a matter of time.

Wrong again. See the U.S. technology transfers and investments in Germany and its future allies in the aftermath of WW I and in the Soviet Union. GM and Ford truck factories, Baldwin trains, all kinds of updated factory equipment and tech, came along. If they hadn't attacked the U.S. and managed to keep Britain out, the Russians would be speaking German as a first language.

 

[Picaro]

Can you imagine had Third Army reconstituted the 70 German divisions in Europe, getting their factories up to full functioning, denied the USSR Air Force fuel?

I doubt a combined Europe could have stopped the U.S. in a war; the Soveits certainly couldn't stop anybody, well, maybe Monte Carlo or Kuwait.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

I agree the Soviet Union's contribution was grossly over-rated; they only stayed in the war because of early British aid and Lend-Lease. They were out of it by the Battle of Moscow, and would have had to sue for terms without the promise of future Allied aid.

I'm not sure what the first part of the OP is about, it's kind of confused. But, the fact is, even with an incompetent lunatic like Hitler running the war for Germany, they effectively crushed Stalin with a much smaller military.

Actually, Soviets made the Nazi German war effort possible by supplying them massive amounts of resources, once those resources ran dry, Nazi Germany was bound to fail...It was merely a matter of time.

Wrong again. See the U.S. technology transfers and investments in Germany and its future allies in the aftermath of WW I and in the Soviet Union. GM and Ford truck factories, Baldwin trains, all kinds of updated factory equipment and tech, came along. If they hadn't attacked the U.S. and managed to keep Britain out, the Russians would be speaking German as a first language.

Uh, much of the fuel, and minerals the Nazis got came from Soviets... You explain how they could prevail attacking Soviets who fed their war effort in such a manner?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Can you imagine had Third Army reconstituted the 70 German divisions in Europe, getting their factories up to full functioning, denied the USSR Air Force fuel?

I doubt a combined Europe could have stopped the U.S. in a war; the Soveits certainly couldn't stop anybody, well, maybe Monte Carlo or Kuwait.

LOL, and yet about 80% of Nazis killed were killed by Soviets..

 

[frigidweirdo]

If Russia was allied with Italy and Japan, they would have lost to the US, England, Germany, and France. The allies would have taken Italy out of the war in six months, ganged up on Russia with a massive Operation Barbarossa reinforced with millions of US, French, and British soldiers joining the Wehrmacht, who would now have a much, much, much better supply system to go along with the millions of reinforcements. The US would keep Japan busy while they finished off Russia and smash them after Russia was finished.

Russia's performance in WW2 is nowhere near as impressive as it is made out to be. They had way too much trouble with a country a fraction of their size who had declared war on the entire planet.

Well, it's all about relativity. When Germany attacked the Russians were very weak, as they'd been in WW1 and before. But Stalin turned things around and made it happen.

 

[dannyboys]

If Hitler hadn't started a war against the West and against Russia at about the same time and had focused solely on Russia instead he might have defeated Russia.
BUT Stalin's scorched earth policy probably would have bleed Germany white eventually.

 

[Picaro]

Can you imagine had Third Army reconstituted the 70 German divisions in Europe, getting their factories up to full functioning, denied the USSR Air Force fuel?

I doubt a combined Europe could have stopped the U.S. in a war; the Soveits certainly couldn't stop anybody, well, maybe Monte Carlo or Kuwait.

LOL, and yet about 80% of Nazis killed were killed by Soviets..

And yet far more Soviet died than Nazis, 100 to 1. The Soviets couldn't even survive after the war without western aid.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Can you imagine had Third Army reconstituted the 70 German divisions in Europe, getting their factories up to full functioning, denied the USSR Air Force fuel?

I doubt a combined Europe could have stopped the U.S. in a war; the Soveits certainly couldn't stop anybody, well, maybe Monte Carlo or Kuwait.

LOL, and yet about 80% of Nazis killed were killed by Soviets..

And yet far more Soviet died than Nazis, 100 to 1. The Soviets couldn't even survive after the war without western aid.

The Soviets were the first to capture Berlin the Nazi German capital...

I think you clearly need to re-read history...