If these three countries moved faster and together they could of taken on the whole world in about 5 years.

Never could of happend thogough, Stalin hated Fascism, Hitler dispised Communism, it would never work.

__________________
Go-Flames-Go

Aggree with Brad. They could never have worked together. Trading: yes, but not fighting together.

__________________

Such an alliance was impossible. The non-agression pact Molotov-Von Ribbentrop of August 1939 was just made because Hitler and Stalin needed time and they wanted to smash Poland. After have achieved that. War was inevitable.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Ditto. Communism was the enemy of all countries. Only reason the West allied itself to Communist Russia was because of the higher threat from Hitler.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

I think Churchill once said that if Hitler would have attacked Hell, then he would have made a pact with Satan.

__________________

Now wait a minute, the soviets and Germans had a pact and took Poland. If Hitler did not hate communists they would of taken the world by force.

If they did that then even the Japs will throw there lot in with American. Still, Stalin wanted war with Hitler and visa versa, it was gonna happen, making it a pretty impossible what if.

And this is coming from someone who believes the Axis were capable of victory in May 1944

__________________
"In war there are no excuses. Victory needs none, Defeat allows none."

Ha! This is a good one!

If Saddam would have not been a dictator then Bush wouldn't have attacked... It is very easy to say 'would have'...

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

IF this happened the world would be a totally different place.

Because this is a what-if, we have to assume that they are working together for the purpose of this thread, although I agree it would never have happened under historical circumstances.

They would have been invincible. USSR nails Asia while Germany takes Europe, Britain, and Africa. The USA gets boxed in and probably bombed to hell.

__________________
"If your gonna buy the angel s**t, you might as well go for the zombie package as well."
-George Carlin

I think the Fuhrer would have had to have ahd a substantial change of ideology before he conquered the world with the Soviets...

And as for Italy, not sure as to how much help thay would have been.

What would have been interesting is Britain and Germany... [img]graemlins/rk.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/vc.gif[/img]

__________________
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

I think that Brittain would have been conquered, because Germany wouldn't have to send its troops - and more important fighters and bombers - to the East Front.

They could also bring a lot of troops and tanks to Africa where they could defeat the Brittish and conquer the Middel-East.

__________________

Disagree, such an alliance wouldn't be invincible. The Nazi regime was self-destructive and unsustainable, and would have been massively more unstable once Hitler died.

In the instability caused by that, I have no doubt the the USSR would take advantage. Increased friction between the Nazis and Communists, the ideological rift would reopen, and then there would be war.

[ 23. May 2003, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Greenjacket ]

Of course not, Hitler was very well aware of his own mortality and definately would have designed a succesor. I want to imagine how unstable the Third Reich would have been with Heydrich (the most plausible second Führer)...

But still, an alliance between fascists and communists is the same than an alliance between Pepsi and Coca Cola...

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Such an alliance would have been unbeatable.

__________________

Firstly, please leave Italy out of this. The largest single problem that Germany had to deal with all war was Italy. They were an enormous drain on resources, and never accomplished anything. An interesting article was fielded a few years back in the Journal of International History of how much more powerful Germany would have been had Italy stayed neutral. Vast quantities of natural resources, armour weapons, etc were poured into Italy, any Germany never got even a fraction of a return on their investment.

On to the main issue: There are many what-ifs that are worth considering about the war, but there are some that are not. One of those is a lasting alliance between Germany and the USSR. Had Hitler not hated communists, for example, he would likely never have ridden to power, as the Nazis gained their first wave of support based on their opposition to Communism. Mein Kampf makes it very clear what the goals of Germany are, living space in the east obsessed Hitler, the Teutonic crusade against the 'Jewish-Bolshevik' menace to the east. Hitler was going to war against the USSR, he saw it in many way as his raison d'etre. His attacks on the west were only done to free up flanks, resources and secure his front for his invasion of Russia.

Stalin on his part hated the Nazis. From 1932 the entire purpose of the Comintern was to instil anti-fascist feeling in the nations of the world, and to motivate nations against Germany. His greatest fear was to be forced into a war against Germany while the west sat back and watched. His signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact was not an act of ideology, it was an act of expediency and some would say (debatably) an act of desperation.

However, Stalin himself knew that the USSR needed two years to recover from the purges and rebuild their military structure, even he did not expect peace to last beyond that.

Stalin’s motivations are of course difficult to discern, as he left behind no memoirs or minutes of his private meetings. Hitler’s thoughts however are very well documented, and if there is one thing we can say for sure, it’s that Hitler was going to attack the USSR.

And by the way, even if Hitler and Stalin DID somehow manage to form some kind of impossible alliance, 1945: United States develops the atomic bomb, Russia’s bomb program is nascent, and Germany’s bomb program is a disaster waiting to happen.

Poof.

I think it can be said that Stalin hated the western allied ( France, England ) as well.And especially Churchill, who was a well-known anti-communist ( I think he stayed that way all the years, Russia was just needed to bring down Nazi germany ). These countries had tried to end the revolution in Russia. They might be democracies and very different to German dictator-led country, but to Stalin it was all capitalistic countries that tried to end his rule.

Stalin´s wish was to have a war between Hitler and the western allied that would leave Europe helpless and Stalin could pick the easy prey.

On starting war I think Stalin believed that Hitler was able to it by summer 1942.

__________________

I think it can be said that Stalin hated the western allied ( France, England ) as well.</font>[/quote]Well, if not hated, he certainly held them in contempt. However his real hatred was cleary reserved for the fascists. Observe his actions in Spain, and the directives to the Comintern and the European communist parties. Everything Stalin did from about 1934 to 1939 was directed against the nazis. He wanted to maintain normalised relations of course, but it is clear he was far more concerned about Hitler than he was about Chamberlain, Deladier or Lebrun.

Vermillion,

thanx for the reply.

Again I ´d be interested to hear your reply on some things that start to come up here:

In Spain I understand that the Russian help was not all good will. Stalin wanted gold for payments, and I think the got quite a loot in the end. Stalin , I think, even made jokes about the huge sum he got.
Of course there was war between idelologies but Stalin got away as the winner in the end, that is moneywise.

Stalin´s policy in the 30´s was more or less directed into building Russia into "heavy machinery country". For example the Ukrainean famine was due to this as the wheat etc was used for getting money and machines for the country. The politics in sending communism/socialism to other countries was held back soemwhat though Cominterne existed. This is one of the reasons Trotski didn´t like about Stalin´s politics, as Communism is global revolution. So at that point comintern may not have been that important as the Communistic party and Stalin did not invest in it that much. To think Trotski had been there as well, I think Russia would have been much more active in Europe (!!!!).

I think Stalin had put quite alot of hope in the German communistic party as well, and they were not just a little group until the party was forbidden in Germany. Several milion members. But then again Stalin had bad ideas for the leaders od these parties. To my knowledge he eliminated the leaders of Polish communistic party and was preparing to do the same thing for German communists as well. The Finnish communists that ecaped to karelia in Russia were eliminated almost to the last man....
I read as well that Stalin might have thought that the Germans might start a revolution as they had heard of the attack in Russia and the nation with communists in front would have brought Hitler down and Germany joined Russia in the common cause...Wishful thinking...

__________________