What if Hitler and Stalin were allies?

Talk about strange bed fellows. If they join forces, can the Brits and Yanks still recover continental Europe?

 

The ring will serve only one master. Completely different dictators and idealogies, interesting question up until one looks at the root of the attempt to truely ally.

 

So what?
Suspend your disbelief...

Nah - Nazi German technology and USSR industrial base & manpower, there ain't a hope.
You'd end up with a Cold-War style stand-off.
Or maybe we'd lob in a few nukes to encourage surrender. Always assuming Germany does not end up developing them too...

 

Berlin, Moscow would be nuked. The USA would'nt mess around with such an enemy.

 

That would have been difficult, because if Hitler and Stalin had been allies the US would soon have lost England as an airbase.
And would have to face thousands of Jet Figthers.

 

Yeah, not to mention the fairly direct connection that suddenly exists between the German and Soviet factories and the Japanese on the continent. Bye bye, colonial empire!

I don't think any nation would be able to resist such a Eurasian global alliance. World domination for totalitarianism!

Maybe the US would be able to hold its own for a short while, deprived of much of its oil, but only if it was capable of turning America into a fortress in just a few years.

 

Too many if's and but's to say but I doubt if anyone would have stopped them. By the time the Americans had developed nukes (not knowing the British input) the western wall would be heavily defended and covered with radar making a very hazardous journey for any plane carrying a nuke.

 

Ok, so now we are saying the jet fighters would have been available, and the British Isles would have been finished? Well then I say the USA would have been in the War much earlier, and seeing that the Germans were allying with the Russians the Japanese would not ally with the Russians. The USA would then see the benefits of removing such antagonistic political wrangling shown towards the Japanese nation.

Since Korea is under Japanese rule the Americans would have no problem bombing either capital, or vast army coming pver the horizon.

I love alternate reality. Between the British+American+Japanes+Canadian Navies the Axix cannot compete. Now we can consider the world's largest airforce, the USA+Japan+Canada that can outproduce both the Russians and Germans, without competition.

So now the Indian army, 1-2 million strong plus the others mentioned in the Naval and Airforce arguments is added to the rest of the Allies.

The Brits would have used Bio-Warfare on the European continent to remove these food sources: beef & pork. I don't know about a beattle to infest crops but I know that Churchill was the proper bastard for the proper time and would have used it to set the building blocks for a future victory.

Well, I think you get the picture; the world war would have lasted for a decade, if not longer, if this were to happen.

Would have Japan invaded China if the Allies had made such an alliance? No, and we all know that the Chinese would have had the largest pool of manpower to provide soldiers to the Allies.

Like Rommel said, '"Germany is like an Elephant on an anthill. In the beginning the elephant will kill thousands, perhaps millions of ants, but in the end the elephant will be overcome by the enraged ants"'.

However Turkey would probably go over to the Axis and that is another 'fly in the ointment', isn't it.

But your argument is good on the tech advances in jet fighters and bombers, and all the rest like tanks.

To look at things absolutely is a facade to defeat, where this is black and white there is always a degree of grey . . . somewhere.

Cheers!

 

Wheww, what imaginations. All I can conjure up with my narrowed mind is the possibility of another static warfare between the 2 sides. With the Brits and Yanks controlling most of the sea lanes off Europe, Germany and Russia would be content to sit on their conquests in the West. Since the Germans aren't fighting the Russians in the east, they will have a few extra million men and several thousand more tanks and planes defending the French and Italian coast. Thus it's doubful that the Allies will make any successful amphibious landings.
Seeing that the US has its hands full with Germany and Russia, Japan will no doubt make aggressive advances towards American and British colonies in the far East. However as WWII showed, once the US mobilizes its military industry and men power, it's a matter of time before Japan will be defeated. Although without the use of nukes, I highly doubt the US will risk a major land campaign on the Japanese main land, with Germany and Russian looking on. Also, it won't be a shock if the Red Army stab the Japs in the back and invade Manchuria to grab more territories.

 

Japan and the Russians did not like one another, therefore would have stayed allied with the British and its Commonwealth.

The Axis wouldn't have sttod a chance against the Brit, USA and Canadian and Japanese navies raised against them.

 

It's true that Japan and Russia hold grudges with each other, but the Japanese ambition lies in the East, thus they would have sided with the Russians and Germans. Wouldn't you say so... Besides, it's probably stratigically advantagious for Russia and Japan to make "peace" with another in order to avoid fighting on two fronts.

 

I think that any alliance between Germany and Russia would have ultimately failed - neither countriy was not overly fond of the other.

What would be interesting would be to see what the Russian population would have done, had there not been a war. Relatively large parts of the Russian population still preferred the Tzar, and welcomed the Germans as liberators (until Germany started the anti-partisan operations - again, Germany's ideology overcame logic and helped loose the war).

Would a second revolution or possibly fragmentation be a possibility if there was no war - e.g. the creation of Belarus in 1943?

Christian

 

A russo-german alliance would have soon defeated Britain in Europe.
The japanese would have profited from this situation to take control of british posessions in Asia.(Including Australia)This would have the US turned against them quite quickly.
So I think the japanese would have most probably sided with the Germans/Russians, or would have been neutral.They would not have been as foolish to think they could withstand an russian-chinese assault on land.
Controlling Europe and Asia, the Germans and Russians would have been able build up a quite impressive Navy.

India, liberated from the british would have been neutral too, why should they fight Germany/Russia?

Fortunately, such an german-soviet alliance was very improbable, but if they had succeeded in doing so, I do not see who could have defeated them.

 

I think that is highly likely, considering the intense hatred felt among the Baltic peoples against the Russians after 1939. Then there were Georgian nationalists, and Ukranians, and Belorussians, and the Polish of course... This could have meant serious trouble for Stalinist Russia.

 

Well, given the general ruthlessness of both Nazi and Communist governments, not really.

Check the post-war uprisings for reactions to such events...

Basically, any attempts by anybody to get away from Stalin would result in a LOT of troops moving in very quickly.
I doubt that he would call on his good buddy Mr Hitler (never thought Adolf & Josef would get called 'good buddies, eh!) to help out to help out, at least I doubt things would get that serious for Stalin.

 

Even if Russia would strike down such states, it could have opened the possibility of an attack on a somewhat weakened Russian army. Furthermore, partisans would have fought Russian forces rather than German, and if Germany would later invade, join the German forces. Finally, it is more doubious that the Allies would support Russia (not just through Lend-Lease, but in general coordination) if Russia would be an obvious initial aggressor.

 

Stalin and Hitler allied?
God saved us from this!

 

If Russian manpower is joined to German technology in 1939, they might well win. MIGHT win, I repeat. To assume that they would is to ignore the deep flaws in both the German and Russian militaries at that time. The Germans had a lot of trouble with divided command structures (note North Africa and the Mediterranean) and also suffered from a procurement program that was so heavily politicized that a number of promising weapons (The Heinkel 219 night fighter, for example) were either not developed or produced in appallingly small numbers, simply because the Nazi brass was mad at the designer.

As for the Soviets, numbers were just about their only asset. The troops were poorly trained, equipped, and led (The Winter War against Finland proved that), while the officer corps was still reeling from Stalin's purges. The Red Air Force was equipped with planes that were mostly obsolete or obsolescent, while their Navy tended to be a non-factor.

I would also point out that there would still have been no way for ground troops to get across the Channel to invade Britain.

So victory for such a combination is not necessarily automatic.

 

But I think that if Germany had not to fight in Russia, it could focuse on plane + submarine production and would quite soon starve England to death.

 

Hitler & Stalin allies

They were allies. remember the Molotov-Vov Ribbentrop signed treaty that allowed the division of Poland and Eastern Europe and lead to WW2.Hitler wasnt going to move until his eastern borders were quiet. allowing him to move West.