I hate having to defend myself against someone who doesn't fully read my post.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AndyW:
Unless this Germans were unlucky enough of being either jewish, a gipsy, a homosexual, a criminal or mentally disabled, a Communist, a Pacifist, an Alcoholic, a members of Christian a sect, a returned emigrant, a drug addicted, someone who didn’t want to work, part of the left intelligentsia (whatever that means), a social democrat, a child refusing to join the Hitler Youth, a farmer who left his farm or someone who had the bad luck of being accused of making jokes mocking or criticizing national socialism or Herrn Hitler (truthfully or not), short everyone who was conspicuous of being a “unworthy element” or a thread to the nazi regime or Herrn Hitler personally.

This, plus the 3 M killed German soldiers, the other 3 M killed German civilians and the 18 M Germans expulsed from their homeland (of which 2 M died), the irreversible loss of East Prussia, Pommerania and Silesia, not to count the billions of billions worth damage caused by starting this %&$ war.

16 % of the German population died because of Hitler. Very decent indeed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I said decent to most germans. Also I'm not saying he was wonderful at all. I hate Hitler, one of the main reasons I respect Rommel is because of his objections to him. Also, comparing Stalin to Hitler as to who is worse is like asking which kind of knife you would like plunged into your chest. They are just different takes on the horrible.

What I do want to say is that in peace time, Hitler didn't kill/starve millions of his own people, (ethnic Germans).

And finally; Andy, you also say 16% of Germany died because of Hitler. Are you saying that Hitler was the only reason WW2 started? I disagree, I believe he was a catalyst, but WW2 was going to be fought with or without Hitler. In peacetime, Stalin did out of pure paranoia kill millions of his own populace. During war, especially the 'total war' we saw during WW2 lossing will be heavy, but willful extermination of a people, (wether in the nazi holocaust or in the soviet purges), is abhorrent.

Can we get back on topic now?

I think the Allies vs Russia war would only have been fought had the Allies initiated it. Had that been the case, the US would have prepared, B-29's, sherman firely and pershing tanks, etc. It would have been a bloodbath, but the allies would have won. The only issue I think might make things difficult for the allies is wether or not they could sustain very heavy combat losses. EG,: 1 to 2 million. The fighting spirit of the US back home might have been diminished had they known they were throwing their youth into a true meatgrinder.

-----------------------------------------------

Rommel, by the way, I see where you are coming from, these two guys are evil, just different kinds of evil. You never said he was "decent", read your posts guys!

------------------
Who's peppy? I am!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The fighting spirit of the US back home might have been diminished had they known they were throwing their youth into a true meatgrinder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


To say the least...

Market Garden was a walk in the park compared to “Barricades” and “Krasny Oktyabr” (“Red October”) factories in Stalingrad.
Total US Casualties for WWII: less than 300,000. the cost would have been MUCH higher for a war against USSR in 1945.

Ok you maybe right about a drive to moscow circa 1945 but one thing i'm well informed about is a Nato 1980's and soviet push into western Europe.

Now i can undestand that in 1945 the Russian people would have taken the casualties of another war, but look at the Afghan war the Russian people wouldnt take the conlfict too many people were dying and even worse it could get onto TV and news despite heavy censoring, cesnoring cant stop telegrams coming home and people from dying.

But the Russians would have taken EXTREME casualties due to the fact that in their 80's come of their units were still using T-55s and T-60s. many of the new russian tanks at the time didnt have thermal and or night version sights making them easy prey for Nato Tanks. some acouns put a battle for western europe lasting about a Month. this would have been a critical month because the Russians would have most likely taken horrendous casualties (Nato practiced defensive strategies) and it would have been a matter of how many casualties the Russians would have accepted. Nato would have most likely not have been taking as many casualties in Europe (infact it probably couldnt have logisticly lol due to Natio:russian ratio).but that is just the theoratical late 80's situation.

But Fighting Americans is much different from fighting Nazis....


BTW it wasnt churchill or FDR who put up a wall through downtown berlin until 1989.

A 1980 NATO/Warsaw pact war would have been another story... Western Europe as a whole was ready for the clash with Soviets, from anti tank infantry missiles to ICBM.
Depends of the readiness of US forces (they still have the Atlantic too cross, and USSR subs, even old, could have some lucky days).

For that matter i will advise you (if you didn't already read it) the best IMO Tom Clancy Book: Red Storm Rising.

Okay, we're starting to hover around a question that I've been thinking about:

The United States, while producing an absolutely fantastic war machine in 1945 - was still an entire ocean away from the Soviet Union. Germany, on the other hand, posessed an army which (under the circumstances and although was stretched out on multiple fronts) was strong but eventually failed in Barbarossa - while being situated much closer to Russia.

Would distance play a major role in a US/USSR war at the time? Obviously, but maybe not(?) Any feedback.............

Distance does matter, the Atlantic ocean is less a problem in 1945 than 1980 (USSR had no nuke sub navy in 1945 to stink the US in north atlantic) but Western Europe in 1945 was a ruin, and ground logistic without any good ports would have been a major problem. The Allied bombed each and every road and railways... Logistic was a problem in 1944 when the Allied tried to push toward Germany, it would have been so worst for a push toward Moscow... Not speaking of communists partisans.

the US had a large army sitting in Alaska to protect it from the Aleutian invasion. They could have stormed right through the back door of the USSR.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yankee:
the US had a large army sitting in Alaska to protect it from the Aleutian invasion. They could have stormed right through the back door of the USSR.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At what time? 1945 before VJ day w/o A-bomb? After VJ day? Or do you refer to 1980?

U.S. invasion of East Siberia on 1945 before VJ day was strategically impossible, 1945 after VJ possible, but a for sure a disaster. 1980 I don’t know, as it has nothing to do with WW II.

One of my teachers was stationed in Nome (sp?) Alaska during WW2 and there were a large number of American stationed there, it was the last airbase before Russian and im sure bombers could have done alot of damage, he told me the entire base had an underground storage deport full of Tanks and Airplanes for the lend lease program.

------------------
Out side is America!

Alaska was a defensive setup against possible invasion, and later a strategic base for B52.
Please explain what damages B29 could have done to USSR war industry from Alaska...

Had the US and Germans forces combined to fight Stalin, I believe we would have still come out on top. The Germans probably(though being tired)would have had a reason to fight on and harder, just to keep the Slavs off German soil.

The Russian industries being very far away, couldnt help their situation out much. We would eventually kick their hammers and sickles, back to Russia.

It would have been interesting, but.......

This What If scenario begs the question: Would the US or Soviet public be behind another long war? I think 4 years was quite enough. Which nation would be more prepared to continue to fight, the USA or USSR, In practice it comes down to who had the greatest voice within their respective nation. It comes down to the will of Stalin versus the American public opinion. Who wins out?

I'll tell you what, we in the US would have gotten our asses kicked. The casualties inflicted by the massive Soviet armies would have caused so many deaths that the US public would turn against the war. Just like in Vietnam, public opinion would have causes a slow withdrawal of US forces from Europe.

------------------
Who's peppy? I am!!

I dont know if the people would support the effort to go to war with Russia. I really doubt it since everyone was tired of the war, and wanted to have peace. I believe that the western allies were in a better position to continue the war, than the Russians were. I saw or read or heard from somewhere, that the Soviet Union was basically bankrupt from the whole affair.

The general opinion of them at the time, probably wasnt too bad-considering. I doubt a war against them would be supported. Speaking from this point of view.