NationStates Jolt Archive

WWII happens like normal, except Hitler decides NOT to invade the Soviet Union. The Nazis then proceed to take Western and Central Europe, repel American offensives and eventually defeat Britain. The Allies sign peace treaties with the Nazis. America fails to become a true superpower, and Europe is split between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

A few years later, war breaks out between the Nazis and the Soviets. Who's side are you on? Which genocidal maniac do you root for?

Stalin was less genocidal. He didn't kill you for "race", he'd kill you for thinking you were out to get him.

I'd hope the two managed to bleed themselves dry enough to allow for revolutions to take place in Europe.

I would be opposed to both "genocidal maniacs" and the imperialist war between them, instead trying to organize left-wing popular resistance to both tyrannies.

I'd help Soheran.

I've thought of this (or similar circumstances) before.

What would most likely happen is Japan and the United States would become allies, while Germany and the Soviet Union become allies. What follows is a long, bitter Cold War, as the Nazis and Soviets can do practically dick against the two capitalist powers.

I've thought of this (or similar circumstances) before.

What would most likely happen is Japan and the United States would become allies, while Germany and the Soviet Union become allies. What follows is a long, bitter Cold War, as the Nazis and Soviets can do practically dick against the two capitalist powers.

Why? Japanese and American interests were in direct conflict in Asia, and so were German and Soviet interests in Europe. The Germans would have gained absolutely nothing by removing the Americans and the Japanese from the picture, unless they were looking far into the future, while they had an immediate competitor in the Soviet Union. The Japanese would have gained something by impeding the Soviets, but it would make the most sense to do that in coalition with the Germans, not with the US. In fact, since Pearl Harbor would still have occurred in this scenario, there would be next to no chance of a US/Japan alliance.

A more likely scenario is cooperation between the US and the Soviets against the Japanese, combined with tacit US support for the Soviet war against the Nazis.

Why? Japanese and American interests were in direct conflict in Asia, and so were German and Soviet interests in Europe. The Germans would have gained absolutely nothing by removing the Americans and the Japanese from the picture, unless they were looking far into the future, while they had an immediate competitor in the Soviet Union. The Japanese would have gained something by impeding the Soviets, but it would make the most sense to do that in coalition with the Germans, not with the US. In fact, since Pearl Harbor would still have occurred in this scenario, there would be next to no chance of a US/Japan alliance.

A more likely scenario is cooperation between the US and the Soviets against the Japanese, combined with tacit US support for the Soviet war against the Nazis.

Hmm... I was thinking, in my scenario, America pulls out of Europe but still defeats Japan, with nukes if necessary.

IMO, America would stay out of my Nazi-Soviet War, or might enter, depending on which side started it.

Hmm... I was thinking, in my scenario, America pulls out of Europe but still defeats Japan, with nukes if necessary.

Yeah, that's probably what would have happened, unless the fighting in Western Europe against the Nazis was a total military catastrophe.

IMO, America would stay out of my Nazi-Soviet War, or might enter, depending on which side started it.

It wouldn't intervene overtly, it wouldn't really have any dog in the fight. But I think the US would have been more concerned about Germany emerging as a rival than the Soviets, unless Stalin began messing around in Asia.

i'm sorry but i don't root for any kind of maniacal soverignty including the kind we've got in the u.s. now.

i would root though for there never having been a roman empire and thus a world not being saddled with militantly chauvanistic beliefs today.
one in which the middle ages never happened.
one in which tecnology might have never accelerated in development to the pace seen in the twentieth century but one in which its development at a saner pace would never have been interupted by fanatacism and thus could, even at that more modest pace, still be ahead of where we are today. focused on harmoniously coexisting with nature while still providing gratification, instead of conflict.

a world in which there might be no superpowers at all, possibly even no government more powerful then a council of tribal elders.

and no paragovernment like corporatocracy powerful either.

=^^=
.../\...

It wouldn't intervene overtly, it wouldn't really have any dog in the fight. But I think the US would have been more concerned about Germany emerging as a rival than the Soviets, unless Stalin began messing around in Asia.

Hey, but, assuming China still goes communist, how would that affect the US' stance?

Hmm... I was thinking, in my scenario, America pulls out of Europe but still defeats Japan, with nukes if necessary.Yet they wouldn't nuke Germany? If they had nukes, they'd have used them.

Yet they wouldn't nuke Germany? If they had nukes, they'd have used them.

Hmm... I'd think that by that stage, America would have seen Nazi Germany as too powerful, or too well established, to bother nuking them. Also, by then, a strong Germany might have it's own nukes.

Hmm... I'd think that by that stage, America would have seen Nazi Germany as too powerful, or too well established, to bother nuking them. Also, by then, a strong Germany might have it's own nukes.Nah, that just doesn't make sense. There's no way they'd give up the fight once they started it.
It'd make more sense if they hadn't gotten involved in the first place. All you'd needed to accomplish that was a fast capture of Britain. A lot of americans were sympathetic to the nazis before the war; and they weren't exactly jumping to get involved either.

Nah, that just doesn't make sense. There's no way they'd give up the fight once they started it.
It'd make more sense if they hadn't gotten involved in the first place. All you'd needed to accomplish that was a fast capture of Britain. A lot of americans were sympathetic to the nazis before the war; and they weren't exactly jumping to get involved either.

Remember, Germany isn't fighting the Soviets. I see it as entirely realistic that America would be repelled in Europe, and would then change focus to Japan and leave Europe be.

Remember, Germany isn't fighting the Soviets. I see it as entirely realistic that America would be repelled in Europe, and would then change focus to Japan and leave Europe be.For the first part I agree, moreso, they'd likely be repelled if the soviets weren't involved (more germans fought on that front than in the west). But they wouldn't turn their back on Europe just because the first invasion didn't went to plan. (Actually, without the soviets they'd probably not have tried the Normandy landing). And as long as britain is there, they have a foothold.
Then as soon as nukes become available, it's go time. Use them before the other uses them.

If the Nazis choose not to invade the USSR then the USSR would have choosen to attack the Nazis. Neither side seriously considered remaining neutral. The non-agression pact was purely because each side wanted a little more time. The Soviets wanted to build up their army and the Nazis wanted to be rid of the western front.

Your situation basically sounds like Red Alert, but swap the Allies for the Nazis.

Had the Hitler not invaded the USSR then the UK and France would have been aniliated and the USA would never have joined the war. There would have been no Allies.

If Japan had still decided to attack pearl harbour then the Nazis may have taken the oppurtunity to invade the East coast which would have been fairly defenceless.

The Nazis would have perfected their nuclear weapons, jet engines and the V2 rockets. The Nazis would have been in a very enviable position.

WWII happens like normal, except Hitler decides NOT to invade the Soviet Union. The Nazis then proceed to take Western and Central Europe, repel American offensives and eventually defeat Britain. The Allies sign peace treaties with the Nazis. America fails to become a true superpower, and Europe is split between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

A few years later, war breaks out between the Nazis and the Soviets. Who's side are you on? Which genocidal maniac do you root for?
I'd help Hitler on principal.
But for the fact that New Zealand was on the 'good guys' side i'd woop Hitlers arse and then Stalins.

Hmm... actually, the Nazis would probably be suffering from an over stretched army. I have no doubt they would have invaded, portugal, spain, switzerland and italy. So, they would have probably have to start recruiting from the people they had conquered.

But then if they had developed V2s or nuclear weapons then they probably have bombed Moscow into submission. After all, they didn't think much of the slavs, so wouldn't be worried about killing slavic civillians (or British civilians for that matter and Hitler had a positive view Britain).

I suggest we set up a series of multiplayer Rise of Nations games to determine the outcome!

...

What?

On a more serious note: wouldn't it have eventually just dissolved into nuclear warfare between the USSR and Nazi Germany? Both were nigh close to nukes as it was in WW II. so it seems to me that Europe and western Asia would become a radioactive wasteland while the US struggles to keep going in the aftermath of all that devestating radiation. China might eventually pop out and become the dominant super power.

If Japan had still decided to attack pearl harbour then the Nazis may have taken the oppurtunity to invade the East coast which would have been fairly defenceless.

Germany had to modify civilian boats for an invasion of Britain what makes you think that there would of been any long range transports or a surface fleet to defend it for that matter

not that I think the Nazi's could of won a war on the western front but if they had I doubt by any stretch of the imagination that Hitler’s master plan would of been successful the timing was off once the battle of Britain lagged on so even with are empire in Jerry hands (had they won an invasion the royals would have been used to keep our empire out of Japanese hands) the Soviet union would of used its huge army and crushed Europe Asia would be next followed by pretty much the world

So hurrah for communism I suppose

I believe that the USSR would´ve probably attacked germany, but I´m not sure as to where the americans would stand at that point. Correct me if I´m wrong but the primary reasons the U.S. got involved was because of german U-boat activity threatening american ships and the attack on pearl harbour?

Considering the precarious situation Hitler would´ve found himself in: USSR a threat on the east and America a possible threat on the West yet a business partner in many ways as well, he would´ve probably tried to steer a course towards stronger friendship through economy with American industry, called off the U-boats and just focused on conquering england and france while building up more and more defenses on the eastern borders. And perhaps trying to get USSR into a more secure truce, if possible.

In the case of Nazis vs Russia, I believe I would not have picked the nazis. But to say I choose to side with russia, hmmm probably not as well.

Probably hang out at Bazooka's Circus or just live life as I most likely would have been spoon fed propoganda since the day I was born. Probably wouldn't feel to much about the rights and wrongs of Nazi Europe or the Soviet Union. Yea that's probably it.

Stalin all the way. 'least he wasn't a genocidal fruitbasket - just a paranoid nutter. Would back the Russians to win, too - they did it pretty much on their own in the first place, with much less time to prepare.

A few years later, war breaks out between the Nazis and the Soviets. Who's side are you on? Which genocidal maniac do you root for?

I'd either stay out of it, or nuke them both.

Nazi's would fail due to the fact Hitler had throat cancer.

The soviet union wouldnt corrupt due to the fact it was he mafia-soldiers fault, no military training, no mafia, no collapse.

Without Hitler the germans are in dismay, since Heidrich died no person has enough support or leadership skills to take over.

Eventually Himmler wins, who is a weak bastard so the Third Reich Collapses.

This causes factions to form

Britain (With ireland)
Scandanavia.
Third Reich (Includes territories before the war started and Italy)
Spain
France (Including Andorra)
and many many many many little eastern european ones. These quickly get snapped up by the Union which continues its march into germany, with no major powers to stop it it takes over europe with the possible exception of the far west. Britain, france and spain.

Following the collapse of the commonwealth, africa's debts mount higher and India, Canada and australia never achieve the power they have today.
Japan invades China thus stopping the Chinese superpower emerging.

America DOESNT get rich due to war debts and as such its economy stagnants.

Result, USSR becomes the hyperpower, possibly collapses to be replaces by America or China

CCCP!

eventually defeat Britain.

How prey do they do this? Hitler could not get air superiority and so any invasion would have been bombed to bits. Nor was he able to deal with the British Navy.

How prey do they do this? Hitler could not get air superiority and so any invasion would have been bombed to bits. Nor was he able to deal with the British Navy.
The idea is that there is no Eastern Front. Without an Eastern Front, a 1944 Germany could steamroll anything under the sun. As neat as the Spitfire might have been - against the sort of designs that were around near the end of the war, the RAF couldn't have done much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_234
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_163
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_287
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229

Anyways, don't you realise that the Nazis could never not have invaded the USSR? It was the central purpose of their existance! Hitler was not the type to wait.

i'm sorry but i don't root for any kind of maniacal soverignty including the kind we've got in the u.s. now.

i would root though for there never having been a roman empire and thus a world not being saddled with militantly chauvanistic beliefs today.
one in which the middle ages never happened.
one in which tecnology might have never accelerated in development to the pace seen in the twentieth century but one in which its development at a saner pace would never have been interupted by fanatacism and thus could, even at that more modest pace, still be ahead of where we are today. focused on harmoniously coexisting with nature while still providing gratification, instead of conflict.

a world in which there might be no superpowers at all, possibly even no government more powerful then a council of tribal elders.

and no paragovernment like corporatocracy powerful either.

=^^=
.../\...


You're essentially saying you don't want any society greater than a small village. That then means no technology much above Dark Ages Europe. Even with gunpowder, not much new would be discovered. Science fails without society.

WWII happens like normal, except Hitler decides NOT to invade the Soviet Union. The Nazis then proceed to take Western and Central Europe, repel American offensives and eventually defeat Britain. The Allies sign peace treaties with the Nazis. America fails to become a true superpower, and Europe is split between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

A few years later, war breaks out between the Nazis and the Soviets. Who's side are you on? Which genocidal maniac do you root for?

Funny. I read that in an airport years ago. (Well, barring the Japanese and US teaming up. In this book, the US beat the Japanese but never entered the European theatre. Not bad if you're stuck in the St. Louis airport for 3 hours.)

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0671877399.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Nuke em all. With any hope we still get the a-bomb before Hitler.

If I was the president of the U.S. I'd stay out of it, let them beat the crap out of each other, then destroy whoever was left with the help of all the massive resistance campaigns that would have sprung up in the weakend winner.

What year? Hitler would win before 1950 because he had good technology. After that Soviet spys would steal it. And you've forgotton Japan. The US is still no push over and depending on how the Pacific War went in this world Japan could still be powerful. I'll assume they've taken most of the Islands except for Austriala and have split India with an Indian puppet government. Owning Chian and India Japan is definatly a threat. You have a world with 4 supper powers all of them hate eachother. Japan and Germany were allies so they side together agaisnt the soviets in 1952. By 1955 the war is mostly a stalemate because Hitler can't get too deep into Russia but he still has the slight edge in tech and Russia is fighting on two fronts. The US will come the aid of the USSR that same year. We'd retake some islands and try to free England so we can get to Europe. Everyone has two fronts to fight and there's a good bet the US would get the bomb first because we did in real life and we're not ocupied so what's tp stop us? The US starts using the stock pile we've built up since 1945 in 1956. Russia takes over China and India leaves Japanese rule in a bloody uprising that can go through now that Ghandi was executed shortly after it fell to Japan in 1944. The US carves a atomic swathe to Japan and ocupies it. England and France get their independnce in 1957 and everything East of the Rhineland is Mother Russia's. The Cold War begins.

I believe that the USSR would´ve probably attacked germany, but I´m not sure as to where the americans would stand at that point. Correct me if I´m wrong but the primary reasons the U.S. got involved was because of german U-boat activity threatening american ships and the attack on pearl harbour?
Basicly. Except we spell it harbor. We also like you silly Brits and didn't want the Krauts to have a lot of power.

Stalin.
No doubt about it.

Wow, sort of like choosing between killing yourself real slowly with toxic venom or just shooting yourself in the head...both of which are still preferrable to either dictator.

Wow, sort of like choosing between killing yourself real slowly with toxic venom or just shooting yourself in the head...both of which are still preferrable to either dictator.


Don't take it personal... but it's simply a matter of chosing your nightmare side and sticking with it.

A or B, binary choice, and to be executed in a flipflopfree way.


Out of the 2, I prefer shooting myself in the head over a slow toxic venom, btw.

Don't take it personal... but it's simply a matter of chosing your nightmare side and sticking with it.

A or B, binary choice, and to be executed in a flipflopfree way.


Out of the 2, I prefer shooting myself in the head over a slow toxic venom, btw.
It's merely a contrast between them...the one was like a slow venom, the other like being shot, and then left to bleed.

Given a simple A or B situation, being shot is indeed better. That said, in Stalin's regime I would be a potential victim, since anyone goes. In Hitler's I would not.

It's merely a contrast between them...the one was like a slow venom, the other like being shot, and then left to bleed.

Given a simple A or B situation, being shot is indeed better. That said, in Stalin's regime I would be a potential victim, since anyone goes. In Hitler's I would not.


Aahh... that's more like it.

Personally, I think I'd end up on the shitlist for both of 'em, but it remains my opinion that for mankind in general, a thousand year Sov Union would be less... disastrous... than a thousand year Reich.

Same way as I'd rather see my hometown hit by Katrina than by the Vesuvius.

Aahh... that's more like it.

Personally, I think I'd end up on the shitlist for both of 'em, but it remains my opinion that for mankind in general, a thousand year Sov Union would be less... disastrous... than a thousand year Reich.

Same way as I'd rather see my hometown hit by Katrina than by the Vesuvius.
The thing is the dictators were central to both. The USSR could easily have gone the way of NSDAP Germany without Stalin (racist Russians do exist), and Nazi Germany could have gone the way of the USSR without Hitler. A thousand year reign for either would be ambitious, and could be equally disastrous on either side. So as long as Hitler ruled Germany, I would be alive there. :p

The thing is the dictators were central to both. The USSR could easily have gone the way of NSDAP Germany without Stalin (racist Russians do exist), and Nazi Germany could have gone the way of the USSR without Hitler. A thousand year reign for either would be ambitious, and could be equally disastrous on either side. So as long as Hitler ruled Germany, I would be alive there. :p

I refer to the 'red rains proves aliens could have etc' thread for my general scepticislm about and hostility towards the word 'could'.

For all possible intent and purpose, Abe Lincoln was a dictator, and Pinochet was even more so. But I would not hesitate to prefer dictatorial Pinochet over the democratically elected President of Iran, who,for some reason I can't quite fathom yet, somehow reminds me of Hitler.

The dictatorial nature is not really the point, IMHO.All Ambulances are white, of course, but in describing them as white, we haven't really grasped the essence of the Ambulance.

I refer to the 'red rains proves aliens could have etc' thread for my general scepticislm about and hostility towards the word 'could'.
It's only a word after all, and a weak one at that. ;)

For all possible intent and purpose, Abe Lincoln was a dictator, and Pinochet was even more so. But I would not hesitate to prefer dictatorial Pinochet over the democratically elected President of Iran, who,for some reason I can't quite fathom yet, somehow reminds me of Hitler.
http://news.softpedia.com/images/news2/Iran-s-New-President-Doesn-t-Want-to-Make-Friends-with-the-US-2.jpg
That reason is definitely not the moustache. :) Hitler's was a classic.

The dictatorial nature is not really the point, IMHO.All Ambulances are white, of course, but in describing them as white, we haven't really grasped the essence of the Ambulance.
Indeed. What is true though is that both dictators influenced their regimes heavily with their personalities. Were they to be given say, 100 years (to be generous) of prolonged existence, I doubt they'd resemble their original form very much.

Germany had to modify civilian boats for an invasion of Britain what makes you think that there would of been any long range transports or a surface fleet to defend it for that matter

Not really, the Nazis were planning an amphibious transport, but they scrapped it when they changed focus to the USSR.

How prey do they do this? Hitler could not get air superiority and so any invasion would have been bombed to bits. Nor was he able to deal with the British Navy.

Hmm... I think Hitler WOULD get air superiority after a prolonged battle with Britain.

Stalin all the way. 'least he wasn't a genocidal fruitbasket - just a paranoid nutter. Would back the Russians to win, too - they did it pretty much on their own in the first place, with much less time to prepare.

I think the opposite: I'd join Hitler because at least he was insane. Stalin was just a fucking jerk.