Hitler marrying stalin

Discussion in 'World War 2' started by vashstampede, Sep 27, 2012.

  1. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    Had anyone seen this picture? I first saw it when I was in high school. It talked about how the west see the non aggression pack signed by Stalin and Hitler. For a moment back then, some people think the two would become allies.

    Of course, it didn't go that way. I don't know for sure if Hitler already had the plan to invade USSR at that very moment, but was it even possible for the two become true allies in the case of a world war? They both seemed to be happy when divided Poland like a cake.

    If they had teamed up, would history change? But of course, Japan wasn't friendly to USSR, it would be either USSR or Japan for Hitler, not both. Although, nothing is impossible... I meant the 3 of them could be allies together even it is unlikely. Would that change the balance of power in WWII?
    skyblue likes this.
  2. CuriousJ

    CuriousJ New Member

    If the USSR allied with Germany, I'm pretty sure that we'd be living in a very different world today. I'm quite certain that the Allies would not be able to take on both Germany AND Russia. Germany had the technology and Russia the manpower, put them together and you've got a ravaging warbeast. Add Japan to the combination (though unlikely) and it's a sure win for the Axis.
    cavtrooper likes this.
  3. pilot2fly

    pilot2fly Member

    He married him then divorced him. Russia was a force to be reckoned with in WWII and at the end they were part of the allies. Ever heard of the term scorched earth? What the Russians would do is burn everything in sight so the Germans couldn't use it. It was a great strategy.
    cavtrooper likes this.
  4. Tristan009

    Tristan009 New Member

    They were allies for a while, although the USSR wasn't keen to fight on the Western Front. Essentially, Hitler's greed stopped the two countries from defeating the Allies in the war. Had he decided not to betray Stalin, he would have double the troops (Hitler relocated some of his army to the battle against the USSR) and on top of that he would have the USSR troops. It would have been a landslide victory.
  5. Vladimir

    Vladimir Siberian Tiger

    Exactly. Hitler got too greedy for his own good.

    I think his blind hatred for Slavs made him believe that Nazi soldiers could easily destroy the Red Army, even if they are outnumbered by many times.
  6. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    If USSR was on the side of Axis, then WWII might well be still in process right now. With USSR and Germany ground troops dominate the continent, the allies will still dominate the sea with superior naval forces. Challenge allies for superiority at sea was not possible for the Axis even with USSR on their side, and the Axis will still not able to take the battle to America or even to UK. The war would be dragging on and on without large scaled ground actions.

    However, there is other possibilities... with all the resources the Germans could have saved from not attacking USSR, or gained by having USSR on their side, they could have built a lot more war machines. Building large naval forces to challenge allies might be out of question in even decades, but build a lot more aircraft (jet fighter, or even jet bomber) could at least gain the air superiority over continents.

    It wasn't really that many times, was it? :) I thought it was only about double or slightly higher than that judged from the population of the two countries at the time.
  7. Vladimir

    Vladimir Siberian Tiger

    I wasn't talking about the total strength of the army. I was talking about the number of soldiers who could be sent to the eastern theater.

    The Nazis were fighting the British in the West, so half of their soldiers were bogged down there. On the other hand, apart from some minor battles such as Khalkhyn Gol, the Red Army soldiers were sitting idle.
    cavtrooper likes this.
  8. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    From my understanding, only about 400,000 German soldiers were stationed throughout entire western Europe at the time of Battle of Normandy.

    80% or more of total German military forces were used on the eastern front, it was not only half. The British didn't make that much of an impact. :)
  9. Vladimir

    Vladimir Siberian Tiger

    In addition to fighting the British, they also had to control millions of square kilometers of enemy territory in France, Poland, Bohemia, Netherlands.etc

    Also, some 3,000,000 German soldiers took part in the Battle of France, along with hundreds of thousands of Italian soldiers. How much out of that could be re-deployed to the Eastern Front? Not a lot, if you consider the effectiveness of the French resistance.
  10. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    Maybe 3 million German soldiers took place in Battle of France, but that's when there wasn't even an eastern front at the time.

    Majority of German forces were redeployed after the Operation Sea Lion was cancelled.
    It is a known fact that before Operation Barbarossa, Germany amassed 3 million soldiers in the Polish forest. Just how many total military forces do you think Germany had? Was it an all new 3 million men force, or was it redeployed? I chose the latter.

    At least 80% of total German forces were lost on the eastern front. After Battle of France, the British wasn't even engaging Germany on land aside the North African campaign and a few other minor campaigns.
  11. Vladimir

    Vladimir Siberian Tiger

    During the 1940s, Britain's population was less than half of that of Germany. The British were clever. They knew that if they attack the Nazis they will never win. So they waited until Hitler got his troops exhausted.

    Hitler's decision to redeploy his troops eventually encouraged the British to land in Normandy.
  12. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    Well, the British wouldn't be at Normandy if the Americans weren't there with them. :D
    The British did attempt a landing on their own and it failed miserably even with their new tanks.

    While the native British population might be less, the resources at their disposal were vastly richer than those available to the Germans. They were still the #1 colonial power controlling many colonies around the world, including the oil rich Middle East, and the heavily populated India. The total population under British control was in fact much greater than German population.

    The British effort was exaggerated in the war. Rommel had only mere 100,000 under supplied men, and it was one of the biggest battles they(the British) fought.
  13. Vladimir

    Vladimir Siberian Tiger

    Colonial troops from India and Malaya were neither experienced nor technically equipped to wage a war against the German military formations.

    More than 200,000 Indian soldiers took part in the WW2, but they were deployed mainly to the Middle East, Africa and South East Asia. South African troops took part in the fighting against the Nazis, but their number was too small to make any significant impact.
  14. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    Most UK troops were also not experienced either at the beginning of the war. So were the Germans, Russians, Americans. Everyone had to take part in the war to become experienced. Training alone wasn't the same as experience from real combat. Of course those Indian troops were not experienced, since most of them did not see action. Not only that, UK were not equipping their colonial troops the same way how they equip their own troops.

    That doesn't change the fact India has major population can be used as labors and as troops if the UK wanted. Not to mention resources.

    You mentioned Indian troops being used in Middle East. That reminded me of the invasion of Iran. If I remember correctly, Iran was invaded by the allies during WWII to secure oil supply. Their king was exiled as a result. The troops participated in the invasion of Iran included Russians, British, and at least two Indian divisions. Correct me if I am wrong.
  15. Vladimir

    Vladimir Siberian Tiger

    Hmm... that event is known as the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran. Happened in August 1941. The Soviet troops were led by Gen. Dmitry Timofeyevich Kozlov and Gen. Sergei Trofimenko, while the British were led by General Sir Edward Quinan.

    The main reason why Iran was invaded was due to the fact that Reza Shah Pahlavi was a strong sympathizer of the Nazis.

    Troops from Russia, UK, India and Australia took part in the invasion.

    The Indian troop formation which participated in the fighting includes these divisions:
    1. 8th Infantry Division
    2. 10th Infantry Division
    3. 252nd Indian Armoured Brigade
    4. 1st Cavalry Division
    5. 21st Indian Infantry Brigade
    I am not sure of the troop strength...
  16. tripletaker

    tripletaker New Member

    On the outside, it may seem that they were helping each other so that they would both benefit in war. Still, its obvious that it couldn't happen. Both Hitler and Stalin planned to back stab each other once they had gotten what they wanted. Neither really trusted each other and the treaties/agreements they may have made with each other really had no meaning at all.
  17. Vladimir

    Vladimir Siberian Tiger

    Hitler definitely wanted to back stab Stalin, but Stalin never intended to do the reverse. Stalin was quite foolish and trusted Hitler.
  18. skyblue

    skyblue Active Member

    That is a great image. No I had never seen it, before although I knew they were allies for a time. With the alternate reality you propose, I think The Third Reich and the USSR would still be in existence today and most likely control the Middle East oil as well. Other than that, I won't venture to guess. Fun thread idea!

Share This Page