Shouldn't we have allowed the Nazis to destroy the Soviet Union for us?

Question

We could have dealt a huge blow to Communism right then and there. Why did we give them aid? We still could have beaten the Germans afterwards, they would have been so worn down.

Answer 1

I have several points to make about this.

First: The NAZIs did attack the soviet union. if you are interested in actually referencing this, just look up Operation Barbarossa. It took place in the summer of 1941.

Second: If we let the Germans destroy the soviet union, then we wouldnt have an enemy in the form of the Soviet Union. They would have been destroyed.

Lastly: Hitler wasted most of his strength in the fighting in the russian winter. If we had not waged war on him, he would have torn himself apart between bombing Britain and trying to engage in a land war in asia. Also, though he had vast potential in the desert with Rommel, and even a chance to flank the Soviets while taking the oil fields, he often gave it up for short term goals, like Kiev.

So in all, I think that yes we should have allowed the NAZIs to destroy the soviets for us. It would have decimated one of the greatest armies on earth, destroyed another, and left only one to face in the east.

Answer 2

The reason we helped the Russians is because we needed their help to beat the Germans. Really, your statement that we could have beaten them after is pretty weak. Without the massive manpower drain of fighting in Russia it is extremely unlikely that the Normandy invasion would have succeeded. And even if the landings were successful, they would have likely pushed them back into the sea in a week or so. The Luftwaffe would not have been spread so thin, the Army would have been fresh and fully supplied. The Germans would have been more than capable of holding what they had.

The Russians received a huge amount of materiel aid, thousands of tanks and planes and locomotives and many thousands of trucks. Without this it's unlikely they could have stopped the Germans. So Russia would have fallen in 1942 most likely and the German resources would have been poured into Italy, driving out the Allies. Everyone likes to point to Stalingrad, and say there was not Allied aid there. You're wrong! The truck and trains alone were aid enough for stalingrad. They brought in the troops and supplies to maintain the fight. The Allied aid was what allowed the Russians to last long enough to get that far. Until their own production got up to speed they were quite dependent on outside equipment. I don't understand where this attitude comes from that the Russians did it all on their own. No single nation did it alone. The Allies only adantage was cooperation and sharing of resources.

World War Two was not won easily by the Allies. If any one of the major Allied powers had collapsed the Germans would likely have won.

Answer 3

3 factors: a million. The Germans invaded Poland sixteen days in the past the Soviets did. Britain and France had treaties which obligated them to factor with Poland. The Western Democracies did no longer comprehend that the Soviet Union could invade Poland, so your question assumes hindsight. 2. Hitler's plan surely advance into to invade the Soviet Union, whether it advance into additionally in the plan to weigh down the West first, and then turn East. You seem to intend that, absent a French and British announcement of conflict, Hitler could have adjusted his plan and invaded the Soviets first. there is no evidence to help this thought, and besides, there is crucial evidence to help the thought Germany could in basic terms have declared conflict on France and invaded besides. additionally, their invasion path took them by way of Belgium, which Britain advance into additionally treaty sure to help. 3. in spite of having to disperse his armies against 3 fronts (North Africa, too), Hitler's forces got here particularly on the fringe of destroying the Soviet Union. Had they been able to accomplish that in the past turning returned against the British and their American allies, do you fairly think of the Allies could have been in a extra constructive place? i do no longer disagree with you regarding the monster that Stalin advance into, yet perchance the factor you should be finding at is why the improvement from the West advance into stopped in 1945. Patton, between different others, felt that the Anglo-American forces coould have pushed the Soviets returned a minimum of out of jap Europe, and thinking the yank monopoly on the atomic bombs, could even have been able to defeat the Soviet Union completely.

Answer 4

Problem is that the Russians would have destoyed the Germans and just kept going, possibly turning on the U.S., in an attempt to maximize their territorial control to include all of Europe -- to help insure no more threats from the West in the future. The Cold War proved that intent. Make no mistake, the Russians were not our allies in the war. We just had a common enemy. They clearly had their own agenda which was not unlike the German's.

Answer 5

It was impossible for the Germans to take Russia anyway. They stalled up in Stalingrad and Hitler kept pressing for them to keep attacking instead of doing a retreat. While their army was held up attacking the city, Russian reinforcements were able to surround the city and effectively starve an already depleted force. They had nowhere to run, as they had Russians at one side and a river on the other. That right there was a major turning point in the war as the Nazis had lost a large contingent of forces pressing an already doomed attack, and they had spent a lot of resources pushing for it.

Answer 6

History is doomed to repeat itself if we learn form the past we can make a better future.
Anyways, answer to your question, America was too worried about Nazi Germany, Russian was are ally back then if we made two enemies it would be really hard to win.
We would have to take out Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, and Japan all at once.

Answer 7

HAD YOU ALLOWED THE NAZI TO DESTROY AND PARALYZE THE SOVIET UNION YOU WOULD HAVE LOST THE WAR.NO YOU COULD NOT HAVE DESTROYED THE NAZI FORCES AFTERWARD.IT IS RUSSIA WHO LOST SEVERAL MILLION PEOPLE FIGHTING GERMANY AND ABSORBING THE MOST POWERFUL ENERGY OF THE NAZI ATTACK.YOU HAVE DISINTEGRATED THE SOVIET UNION IN A DEMOCRATIC WAY.WHY DO YOU STILL HATE RUSSIA?RUSSIA,NOW, IS A MAJOR POWER IN FIGHTING TERRORISM; DO NT EVER FORGET THAT!
THE AREA OF RUSSIA ALONE IS STILL LARGER THAN THE US;IMAGINE...JUST IMAGINE THAT RUSSIA IS SUPPORTING TERRORISM....WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE FREE WORLD?

Answer 8

Are you kidding me? Germany was never strong enough to take the Soviet Union... especially during the winter... Napoleon, anyone? Besides, even if they had been somehow able to pull it off, the invention of the atomic bomb in 1945 would have quickly ended the war with Germany anyways.

Answer 9

i see what you mean, but i doubt that the Nazis actually would've attacked the Soviet Union. Hitler was afraid of Great Britain and Soviet Union, the latter because of its size. But even if they did, the United States' government isn't smart enough for that kind of reasoning. Instead of letting them attack each other, we'd just attack both of them, making us a weaker opponent, and the laughing-stock of the world again. Your idea would've worked in theory, but the brains of our government hadn't evolved enough for it to be put in action.

Answer 10

We should have followed the advice of Gen. Patton and fought the Russians in 45 when we had the men and euipment over there to do it with.