Would the world have been better off if the allies joined with Nazi Germany to defeat the Soviet Union?

2016-07-10T01:40:50-04:00

No, I'm not a Nazi; Yes, I know Hitler was an evil SOB and Nazis suck. That said, Stalin was responsible for more Soviet deaths than Hitler. The Cold War saw continued casualties in Korea & Vietnam as well as those imprisoned, tortured and executed by the Soviet Union & it's satellites. So before you send the hate remember Pinochet, Noriega, Saddam and other dictators the US has befriended.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2016 1:44 AM

2016-07-10T01:44:12-04:00

I think at the time we were entering the war, Nazi Germany was a much bigger threat. If the timing had been different, say ten years in the future after the Soviet Union had reared its ugly head a little more, it could've ended up differently.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 10 at 2016 1:45 AM

2016-07-10T01:45:14-04:00

I think Patton and his army would have been destroyed. The Russians had way more forces than we had after winning the Battle of Kursk, making their own and getting tanks from the USA and Canada. Their forces were way bigger than our and they probably had 3 times the forces the Allies had not to mention a big air force made up of many of our own planes including Air Cobras. Russia had a total of about 2.5 million men and women in Germany at the time of the German Surrender.

The war would have continued for at least two years and the Russians would have gotten the A-bomb from the Rosenbergs and we may have had nuclear war by the USA dropping copies of the little boy and fat man and the Russians eventually would have had their stolen prototypes to use against the West. China would probably have gone Communist because Secretary of State George C. Marshall did not like Chang Kai Shek so his US-trained forces did not get resupplied after the Communists would against resume the civil war.

China was left out to dry and Russia resupplied the Communists with captured Japanese arms, artillery and ammunition. I read the later in this book. Russia and China would have then been united against the West.

The Korean War may have happened and the Vietnam War would have started sooner and we would have been involved maybe sooner than 1955.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jul 10 at 2016 1:58 AM

2016-07-10T01:58:10-04:00

MSG Private RallyPoint Member The. Allies were weakened by the lack of infantry replacements by early 1945, th Bulge had cost us dearly. Many AA and USAAF personnel were reclassify into the infantry.

By 45 the USSR had 260 plus divisions in Europe with many forward deployed and good interior lines of communication . It's is worthy to note that during the attack on Berlin the Russians had an artillery gun deploy basically on every 19 ft of front line.

Given those facts it is doubtful that we had the combat strength to achievement limited success.

Stay on the tank!

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jul 10 at 2016 2:27 AM

2016-07-10T02:27:43-04:00

Anyone ever played the Red Alert series?

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Jul 10 at 2016 3:09 AM

2016-07-10T03:09:42-04:00

MSG Private RallyPoint Member My daddy told me, prior to 1951, that we should have 'done' the Russians while we had the Army! The Rusdians had been sondrpendantv

Response by SPC Kirk Gilles made Jul 10 at 2016 3:51 AM

2016-07-10T03:51:08-04:00

Wow. Gen Patton would agree on that. I have been watching the Apocalypse Stalin episodes. He was super bad guy, maybe the worst.
No, it would have been an evil alliance too. Hitler hated the Slavs too. The mass killings would have continued on a bigger scale with the nazis over the Soviet/Slavic people.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jul 10 at 2016 4:52 AM

2016-07-10T04:52:21-04:00

Hold On, Reread the question. I think we are looking at the basic premise all wrong. I interpret the question as meaning that we would have allied with Germany BEFORE the 8th Air Force and British Bomber Command bombed them into the 19th Century. Basically "Should we have accepted Rudolph Hess' offer to conclude a separate peace between the Western Allies and Germany. Whether or not we joined in the fight against the USSR was not Hess' main objective, but to end the war in the west was. I have been a student of World War II for about 45 years (Since I was in the 1st or 2d grade and could read well enough to get books out of the library) There are some major facts that need to be factored in to this equation.
-- You all realize that in late 41, Germany had still not been defeated and had Hess's mission been complete the Army that Germany sent into Russia would ave been twice the size or more.
-- It took the three largest nations/Empire to FIVE years to defeat the Germans. The United States did not have to deal with bombings disrupting production, the British Empire included troops from, but not limited to Australia, Canada, India, South Africa, New Zealand, Scotland, Ireland, and Rhodesia. The Soviet Union had conquered the Baltic States and the Ukraine prior to the German Invasion. I have omitted the French from this because they got their asses handed to them in less than 60 days, and we all know that going to war without the French is like going duck hunting without an accordion. The allies also had troops in exile from Poland, The Netherlands, Belgium and Czechoslovakia ...so To say that beating Germany would have been easy is forgetting the simple lessons of history.
-- Had the Western Allies accepted Hess' offer and even just did not help the USSR , not invading them, the Russians would not have had the food, fuel and material that was supplied by the Western Allies. They would not have had the equipment needed to hold off the Germany victory.
-- The Germans were welcomed as Liberators in Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. I doubt that those countries would have supported the USSR had German victory seemed closer.
-- The War Started September 1st 1939, when Poland was invaded from the West by Germany and simultaniously from the East by the Soviet Union.
-- The USSR was an ally of Germany until the invasion of the USSR by Germany 22 June 1941, almost 2 years after the war started. In fact the Germans and Russians were in negotiations prior to Operation Barbarossa to become allies themselves, with the Soviets placing the condition that the Germans NOT interfere with affairs in "the Soviet Sphere of Influence" which would have ended the dream of "Lebensraum" in the east. Negotiations between the USSR and Germany did not conclude until January 1941.
-- Initially, the Holocaust and actions against the Jews were the result of the perception that most Jews were also Communist. This came as a result of the two failed Communist Revolutions in Germany during the Weimar Republic and the fact that those revolutions ad been headed by the Sparticusbund, led by Karl Leibnicht and Rosa Luxemburg. Upon investigation it was determined that most of the leaders of the Communists revolutions both in Berlin and Munchen were Jewish. If you look, the Nazis tried to deport the Jews, as had England, France and Spain (along with others) at different times in their histories. Death camps did not begin until after the Wanasee Conference. Forced Immigration, mainly to Palestine, did not end until after the Western Allies declared war on Germany.
-- Stalin was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Poland after September '39, and in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Ukraine, not to mention over 20 million Russians.
-- Communism has been responsible directly or indirectly for every war since the Russian Revolution.
-- Had the USSR been defeated, China likely would not have gone Communist, thus saving the lives of nearly 200 million killed in purges since 1949.
-- The Cold War, Korea, the South American brush wars, Vietnam, the Chinese revolution, the war against Burma--I could go on all night-- Would never had happened.

Do the math, we have been inundated by the Media how bad the Germans were, but the Western Allies slept with Satan himself in order to stop one demon.
I would have preferred to see the United states NOT ENTER World War I (Where we had no business) or to have entered on the Side of Germany--Which almost happened--so that a German victory in World War I would have ensured that World War II would NEVER have occurred and Hitler would ave remained an obscure, out of work postcard painter.

Response by Alan K. made Jul 10 at 2016 6:01 AM

2016-07-10T06:01:57-04:00

Pretty sure that wouldn't have gone over too well....

Response by PO2 Richard Turner made Jul 10 at 2016 7:42 AM

2016-07-10T07:42:12-04:00

Patton wanted to re arm the German army to fight the commies....we should have

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jul 10 at 2016 11:54 AM

2016-07-10T11:54:45-04:00

Interesting idea that with the players then would have been impossible. What would be the "best" outcome would have been exhausting Germany while we put in just enough to defeat Stalin and then cleaning up the 3rd Reich. Back then we knew how to replace governments. Now we have no courage to do so.

Response by SSG Roger Ayscue made Jul 10 at 2016 3:03 PM

2016-07-10T15:03:29-04:00

As a historian, I like to look at historical events 'Outside the Box' and try to keep emotion out of the equation. The National Socialists killed NOT 6 million Jews only, but up to 12 million innocent victims including UP TO an Estimated 6 million Jews. We are inundated with the "6 million Jews" figure in movies and TV, there are monuments to them in most American Cities and they are the only victims of the Nazis that anyone learns about. I am not saying that 6 million Jews are not important, but it is CRITICAL to know that there were 6 million FORGOTTEN victims as well.

Despite this, COMMUNISM was and is more deadly and more dangerous to the free world than Nazism ever was. Communism, which from it's very inception had the highest percentage of Jews in it's leadership in history, was responsible for 120.5 million deaths. That's right, if you take out the 12 million that the Nazis killed, you still have 108.5 MILLION VICTIMS. Those are the FORGOTTEN Victims...Forgotten because the Left Wing and the media have demonized the Germans, yet have played the "Communism/Socialism is not that bad, class warfare, Workers Unite" line almost to the point of acceptance here.

Perhaps if we had assisted the Germans in defeating Communism, we would not be sitting on stockpiles of Nukes large enough to blast the Earth out of orbit, and kill every living thing on the planet a thousand times over. Had Russia been defeated, China, North Korea, Cuba, North Vietnam, Congo, East Germany, Romania, Hungary, Poland Czechoslovakia, Albania, Nicaragua, Mongolia, Tibet, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Cambodia, Laos, and several other nations might have lived in freedom and Peace...But what do I know....

Response by Capt Daniel Goodman made Jul 10 at 2016 9:19 PM

2016-07-10T21:19:05-04:00

I understand your question, and why you ask it, the topic is complex. However, no, I think, and for sevl reasons, though I realize you might not necessarily agree with my thoughts, of course. That being said, I've tried to read considerable world history, ww2 especially, certainly, and I've reached some conclusions, of course totally my own, obviously. That German monster was totally, completely, absolutely, 100% crazy, of course. However, at least up through ww2, if not necessarily later, Stalin wasn't, I think. Evil, certainly, as was Mao, and we're all their subordinates, by all means, however, even insanity, I think, has various gradations, historically. That German monster typified what I tend to think of, as the archetypal example of "the dictator phenomenon". That "thing" was so completely crazy, that virtually the whole planet had to wade into the fray to destroy "it", which I phrase in that fashion, as that " thing", in my view, didn't even qualify as human, at least to my way of thinking. FDR and Churchill both knew quite well what Stalin was, they only cooperated with him due to the argument, "Better the devil you know." They knew he was a monster; however, as monsters went, he was an infinitely preferable monster, at least temporarily, till the German one was utterly and totally destroyed, thankfully. Dictators have been around, as has oligarchs, and demagogues, since humans first stood upright, they'll always be a part of society. If history teaches anything, it teaches that. Also, and I've mentioned this here elsewhere a few times, different societies evolve socioeconomically and or militarily at different rates. That, too, I think, is also a truism. All societies undergo their fascist, communist, and or combined fascist communist phase, all, even the US and the UK, as well as all other countries, in the case of the US, that was in the 1920s and 1930s, as I perceive history, and thankfully, it never took hold, and didn't last. The UK has had its socialist elements for a long time, though, thankfully, it too never went fully communist. I've also mentioned the text The Stages of Economic Growth by Walter w rostow of the JFK cabinet, one of if not the best texts on macroeconomics I'd ever read, as an undergrad. Societies do not evolve due solely to human personalities, they evolve as statistical, highly mathematical entities, no differently than any other aspect of evolutionary biology. The true tragedynof ww2 was that the axis countries, all three Germany, Japan, and Italy, all went fascist at precisely the same time, that was why the whole thing, accelerated by the Depression, also a highly mathematical event, in hindsight, spun so totally and completely out of control, and very nearly consumed the entire planet. Germany, Japan, and Italy have now totally burned out their last lingering vestiges of the Teutonic, the twisted version is samurai Bushido militarism, and the Roman empire. That's what fascist scoeities do, they "replay" such antiquated historical vestiges, generally in an effort at some version of pan-nationalism. That's what gave rise to the Greater SE Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere of Japan, the pan-Aryan aspect of Germany, and the Roman empire fantasies of Mussolini. The difference with taphat German monster was that he was such a totally freaked out maniac, that he could, on occasion, actually "seem" sane, even though he quite obv wasn't. He turned Europe totally into a charnel house, and was, as John Toland described in his 2-vol biography of that lunatic, "...a warped archangel, a hybrid of Prometheus and Lucifer." I actually found thentolandmbiography more current than that other classic, The Decline and Fall of the Third Reich, by William l shirer. That was a good book, certainly, a masterwork, yet now dated, I think, by contrast with that of Toland. I'm not suggesting that Stalin and the other USSR monsters were any less evil than than German "thing", I'm merely inferring that, in the course of ww2, and the cold war, the whole thing was a matter of timing, in dealing with the whole sordid mess. That German monster had to be dealt with first, then Stalin, FDR, Churchill, and Truman also, I think certainly knew that. Don't get me wrong, was just as bollixed up as that German monster in terms of evil, he just went about it differently, and was more surreptitious about it, because he was " more" sane, if you will. It's not that the gulags were any better than the German camps, they were just as bad, that's why the work of Solzhenitsyn was so important, in The Gulag Archipelago. The difference was, that, in the case of Germany and Japan, both populations went totally, completely crazy, completely pegging the insanity meter needle, utterly off the charts virtually littering Europe and China , respectively, with bodies, which, while Stalin did as badly, he did more discreetly, though in just as evil a fashion, yet not quite as crazy a fashion. That's why he was the lesser of two evils, not because FDR and Churchill liked him, Churchill, I'd read, positively loathed him, and I'm sure FDR and Truman were by no means fooled into believing their own "Uncle Joe" hype, by any means. Saddam, Qaddafi, that one recently deposed in Egypt, the ones in Syria, those neo-Stalinist fruitcakes in North Korea caught in their cold war time warp, and all the bad guys now, while all bad, certainly, utterly paled before that German monstrosity. Sometimes, historically, in democracies, deals are misguidedly struck with dictators, because those in power often seek to have order. And yet, they forget that other major lesson of history, "The byword of tyranny is order." Those who make such deals invariably find themselves relearning another old historical adage, "When you've got a tiger by the tail, frequently, you're stuck not being able to let go," or words to that effect. Until the world realizes that a pol pot, a Mao, a Stalin, that German monster, any such monster cannot be reasoned with, only recognized, and, when realized, destroyed, the same thing, unfortunately, will happen over and over and over, again and again and again, cyclically, and endlessly. There's an excellent sci fi novel I'd mentioned on here discussing that very theme, ifmyou haven't read it, I'd read itz also ,as an undergrad, A Canticle for Leibowitz, by Walter Miller, an excellent read never yet made into a film, that very eloquently spells out the utterly cyclical, endless nature of such dictatorships and or empires, from Assyria, to Babylon, to Greece, to Rome, to Carthage, to the present day. I'm quite sure if Julius and octavius Caesar had been recognized or Attila the Hun, or Hannibal, or Alexander, or Genghis Khan, early on, and removed, the world, while doubtlessly more historically boring, probably, woud most likely have been a far more peaceful place, you know? The same thing with that German monster, that "thing" was seen in a film enlisting for ww1; I sometimes wonder if there's been thought to actually realizing that old time travel chestnut about eliminating such monsters, in an effort to change history. The problem is, other monsters would doubtless arise to take their place, nature abhors a vaccpuum, and gas always expands to fill the available volume, you know? I hope that was of at least some interest, I'd be eager fr any thoughts, of course, many thanks.

Response by PO3 Steven Sherrill made Jul 11 at 2016 4:11 PM

2016-07-11T16:11:05-04:00

MSG Private RallyPoint Member this is one of those syphillis or herpes questions. Either way the answer sucks. I was going to say that the difference was that Hitler committed genocide against fringe groups, but they were German citizens so there is no difference between what he did to the "undesirables" in Germany, and what Stalin did to his own people in Russia. I am going to say no for one simple reason. Germany declared a state of war to exist between Germany and the United States.

Response by Cpl Justin Goolsby made Jul 12 at 2016 10:39 AM

2016-07-12T10:39:40-04:00

Personally I do not believe so, and no I'm not going to send you any hate. My reasoning being that if we joined with the Nazis to defeat the Soviets, I think the Nazis would be the largest superpower today. The Nazis were already and expansionist regime and giving them control of not just 1 but 2 continents would have made any future conflict with them difficult.

Response by SFC Richard Giles made Jul 19 at 2016 12:06 PM

2016-07-19T12:06:28-04:00

I was just reading yesterday where the Russians sided with us in helping us to put the final nail in the coffin of Germany. I'm glad that we didn't side with either country, if we had and as a few have stated below I believe we would be living in a completely different world today.
But to answer you question MSG No I don't believe the world would have been better off.

Response by PO3 Donald Murphy made Nov 11 at 2016 9:30 PM

2016-11-11T21:30:28-05:00

Possibly but WW2 was a money war. Read the following non-fiction books:

Martin Bormann by Peter Hall
End Of Empire by Brian Lapping
Trading With The Enemy by Charles Higham
Imperial Cruise by James Bradley
Berlin 1945 by Antony Beevor

America entered the war to remove her competition. That would be the British, French, Belgian and Dutch empires *AS WELL AS* the territory under German, Italian and Japanese control. So on September 2nd, 1945, America was in the position she most wanted to be in. Russia had no navy of any pose-able threat. Her air force was unable to maintain air superiority over Eastern Europe and the only real thing she offered was a large army. And while the Russians could (and did) field large amounts of men and material, it didn't happen at the drop of a hat. Russian campaigns were exercises in bureacratic breakdown, apathy and downright incompetence.

Official "records" list Russian casualties at Berlin's close to be around 225,000 dead. Antony Beevor proves it was more likely 400 - 600,000. Superior enemy is usually brought in to the picture by a popular saying "for every dead German Tiger, there were ten dead Russian T-34's." And while the allied comeback is normally "yeah, but the Russians could afford ten, the Germans couldn't afford the one," the truth is that the Russians couldn't lose 600,000 EVERY single campaign. They just didn't have the materiel. Tanks need fuel. Rifles need bullets. And a lot of that came from Lend Lease. Remove that, and Russia's in pretty dire straights on May 6th, 1945.

The allies (since Normandy) have overwhelming air superiority in every type of platform from recce, strategic bombing, tactical fighters, etc. Additionally, strategically, Russia has no navy. Picture 20 carrier battle groups roaming the Eastern European countryside with alpha strikes daily. Those same groups can drop 300,000 Marines and 300,000 Army at any point on the Russian coast. Russia doesn't have the infrastructure to combat that, plus defend against a frontal assault from German units refueled from the allies. German bureacracy cost her the war, so the last thing America would want would be to continue the same German infrastructure.

Britain already smelled it a mile away. Plus Britain's three months away from being broke. So Churchill's last foray will have to be East to take Hong Kong and Singapore back before the kind, magnanimous Americans grant those folk their freedom...