Started by CubaLibre, June 28, 2012, 10:36:03 PM
Quote from: CubaLibre on June 28, 2012, 10:36:03 PMDid the Allies absolutely need the help of the Soviets to beat Hitler? Personally I always felt it would have been useful to let Hitler and Stalin beat each other to a pulp, until whichever side won was too weak and tired to be of any effect. Was this feasible, or was there something else at work which required cooperation with the Soviets?
Quote from: mdgiles on June 29, 2012, 02:05:35 AMYou know it occurs to me, about the British and Gasmans being at peace, that if the Nazis were really smart they would have contracted out their tank building to some US firms. You know the Americans would have streamlined the process, along with correcting any flaws in the automotive side of the tank. Oh and also stealing the designs. With Britain at peace with Germany, they could have shipped them right across the Atlantic. Meanwhile on the west coast, Soviet ships could have been picking up cargoes to go to Vladivostok. If we played this right, we could have kept both fighting until they collapsed in exhaustion.
Quote from: tbone0106 on June 30, 2012, 11:44:09 AMOkay, you have me confused. When could this scenario possibly take place?
Quote from: mdgiles on June 30, 2012, 11:19:57 PMSee my point above about the British suing for peace on the day of Pearl Harbor. Were that to happen there is no reason for Germany to declare war on the US, two days later, in hopes of gaining Japan's help against the Soviets. With peace in the West, and neutral France and the Low Countries as a buffer. They can now move those troops east to deal with the Soviets. Along with the Italian and German troops fighting in Africa, and the troops in Norway. In addition, with peace, they would now have unfettered access to British and American products. Oh course, this is sort of hard on the Japanese because it means that not only would they be the focus of attention for America, but British ships that were in the Atlantic and Med, and troops that were in Britain and North Africa, are now on their way to the Far East. I would guess that the fly in the ointment of this scenario, is Churchill and all the communist agents and sympathizers in the British and American governments.
Quote from: tbone0106 on July 01, 2012, 01:56:22 AMWell, I think that's a pretty fantastic scenario. Germany received its first military defeat in the skies over England, whether they liked to admit it or not. Hitler did not dismantle Sea Lion with a happy face. To imagine Churchill's government would even make such an offer after whipping "unstoppable" Nazi Germany -- and abandon Poland and the rest of eastern Europe in the process -- is pretty dreamy stuff. There was certainly no love lost between Stalin and Churchill, but Churchill knew the only hope for Europe -- including Great Britain -- was to get the United States into the war with both feet, and effectively abandoning the Soviet Union, into which we were already pumping billions of dollars worth of Lend-Lease hardware, would hardly have been the way to go about it. Hitler's bizarre declaration of war on the U.S. was one of the best gifts Churchill ever received.To imagine that Germany (Hitler) would willingly give up Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Luxembourg, Belgium, and especially hated France is a bit farther than I can stretch my imagination. They had been relatively cheap conquests, but they had not been free (well, maybe Luxembourg). What would keep "neutral France" neutral, if not troops and/or a puppet government? Militarily, Hitler had been a corporal, not a general, and his ideas of military strategy proved disastrous later in the war. (By this time, he had already made what I think was his cardinal mistake -- launching Barbarossa. Stalingrad was right around the corner.) But his troops were already capturing American rifles and the Luftwaffe was shooting down Bell P-39s. Even Hitler could figure out which side the U.S. was likely to join, and even he could visualize a seaborne invasion of Europe from the west; why else had he built the Atlantic Wall? Why then turn around and provide a "neutral" invasion beachhead the size of France? But Hitler was nothing if not a politician, even an ideologue. War for him was a way to achieve political and ideological goals, such as Lebensraum and the Final Solution to the Jewish Question. Ceding all that territory is, I think, just about the last thing he would have done under any circumstances.
Quote from: mdgiles on July 01, 2012, 02:44:58 AMThere was a "peace movement" all along in Britain. And Hitler still confidently expected the British to "come to their senses", realize their "Nordic" brotherhood with Germany and go to war against the inferior Bolshevik Slavs.
Quote from: mdgiles on July 01, 2012, 02:44:58 AMAs for "giving up France and the Low countries, peace with Germany would have strengthened the collaborator and Teutonophiles in these countries, Don't forget, the Germans were able to raise military units of sympathizers out of these countries, even when they were conquered. How popular would the Germans be after an easy peace and withdrawal.
Quote from: mdgiles on July 01, 2012, 02:44:58 AMAnd why the assumption that after being beaten so badly, the French and Low countries would have turned right around and attacked Germany. One of the reasons for their defeat was "war weariness" left over from WW1.
Quote from: mdgiles on July 01, 2012, 02:44:58 AMWhat's in it for them, getting between the Soviets and the Germans? And so Germany let's the France and the Low countries go, did the USSR have to occupy Finland to have a voice in their affairs? Look up the term "Finlandization".
Quote from: mdgiles on July 01, 2012, 02:44:58 AMDo you realize that with France and Britain neutralized, the original "Final Solution" of shipping all the Jews to Madagascar or Southwest Africa, becomes easily attainable.
Quote from: mdgiles on July 01, 2012, 02:44:58 AMAnd the Atlantic Wall was there because Great Britain and the US were still at war with Germany. As I said, the only problem would be Churchill and the Communist agents and sympathizers in the West. You know they would start an uproar to force the West to come to the rescue of the USSR. Of course the answer to that would be to let the sympathizers ship out as volunteer troops for which ever side they preferred.
Quote from: Ford289HiPo on July 01, 2012, 09:50:40 AMGermany was already on it's way to ultimate defeat by the Soviets when we invaded in 1944. Germany could not match the industrial might of the USSR.OTOH, if we didn't intervene, all of Europe could have been entirely under the thumb of Moscow.
QuoteThe Soviets had not fought a war of aggression, but rather a war of defense, defending the Motherland against the invading German hordes. It had cost them something like 20 million citizens. Most importantly, without Allied help, i.e. Lend-Lease and the opening of fronts in northern Africa, western Europe, and so on, the Soviets would never have been in a position to dictate anything to anybody.