In a hypothetical war who would win Russia V. EU with the following stipulations:

- No nukes
- USA sits back from at least putting troops on the ground. We could assume they may donate money/equipment and send "advisers" kind of like at the beginning of WW1.
- China stays neutral so that it can continue trade
- UK doesn't sell out and sticks up for its EU allies.

Discuss....

[Edited on March 21, 2014 at 9:03 AM. Reason : a]

3/21/2014 9:03:03 AM

Is this the standard version or the alternate without the wild cards?

3/21/2014 9:04:50 AM

EU wins, every weapon they have has "made in the USA" stamped on it

also, France surrenders

3/21/2014 9:07:26 AM

Does the missile shield apply here? For use against non-nuclear warheads? I'm sure Russia still has quite the stockpile of chemical weapons they could use.

Oh and people. Lots of people - same problem Hitler had in WWII. No matter how many he killed, there were always 3 more troops to take their place.

3/21/2014 12:11:20 PM

I don't think Ol' Putin could get away with throwing millions of soldiers at it like Stalin did. The world is a very different place and Putin has a lot of his citizens that hate him. There would be a lot of deserters. Especially if it's just over Crimea/Ukraine.

Then again, Europeans aren't exactly known for signing up in droves for military service.

3/21/2014 2:54:14 PM

define "win"

europe isn't getting crimea even if the usa helps. Russia loves putin much more than any western leader is loved. They will have the will to protect crimea and "throw people at it" its not negotiable.

3/21/2014 3:59:46 PM

Need to provide more context if we're going to play a hypothetical war game like this. How does this war start and over what?

3/24/2014 5:23:06 PM

Quote :

"UK doesn't sell out"

huh?

3/24/2014 5:27:49 PM

This is a very silly thread but I haven't gotten to play a strategy game in a while so I'll bite.

EU has the people and the money and a more modern, professional military. It has a superior navy and can thus choke off whatever trade Russia would have left at this point that wasn't aimed at central asia, which is poor.

I could see Belarus, maybe Moldova signing up with Russia. Final settlement, Russia gets to keep those two, quietly engineers a Crimean return to Ukrainian sovereignty. Assuming of course that the rest of Ukraine stays with the EU, which we'll say is a 50/50 proposition.

The Europeans, who like a dog shitting on the rug CAN be taught, don't actually invade deeply into Russia. If it really turned into a grapple, maybe they take Kaliningrad, St. Peteresburg, the Crimea, and Murmansk in outright fighting (all of which are either surrounded exclaves or accessible to the superior EU navy)

Russia would no doubt penetrate into Poland. Any time there's a war in Europe, Poland gets penetrated. It's like European wars are donkey shows and Poland is your mom.

---

Now in all of that I'm assuming a fifth condition in the OP, which is that we're talking military here rather than political questions. I assume that because otherwise the EU doesn't let it become a war. Germany won't be in another general European war if they can help it and the UK doesn't give enough of a shit. Without them, you got nothing.

3/24/2014 6:29:18 PM

Quote :

"Any time there's a war in Europe, Poland gets penetrated. It's like European wars are donkey shows and Poland is your mom."

hahaha

3/24/2014 9:59:51 PM

^^The Germans would go to war if it meant that they could send all of their Turkish immigrants to the battlefield.

3/25/2014 5:53:19 AM

and get back Kalingrad

3/25/2014 10:29:20 AM

Quote :

"Oh and people. Lots of people - same problem Hitler had in WWII. No matter how many he killed, there were always 3 more troops to take their place."

Eh?

The EU's population is over 500 million people. Russia's population is 140 million. Regardless of fighting age there's still no way that's in favor of Russia.

3/25/2014 4:39:23 PM

Yeah, Russia tends to have more people than any given European country in its wars but way more important (given their willingness to lead masses of people into slaughter) is that Russia is big beyond all reason.

3/25/2014 6:02:15 PM

And I'd imagine the average Russian is a lot tougher than the average western European, lol.

3/26/2014 12:57:43 PM

Does the whole "russia is cold" thing even matter anymore? I mean, I'm sure the EU can provide their military with an abundant supply of space heaters.

3/26/2014 4:44:09 PM

The cold by itself was probably never the problem. Most of Europe gets cold, that never stopped them fighting wars. But the supply lines from Poland to Moscow are a lot longer than those between any other two potential combatants in the region. Supply lines + cold + enemy willing to raze the infrastructure as he retreats = bad news for an invading force. Couple that with a large a reasonably modern military and the conventional wisdom stands, invading Russia is a bad idea.

3/26/2014 6:04:02 PM

bingo. the nazis actually wanted the cold to freeze the muck so they could actually move armor, etc.

3/26/2014 6:49:33 PM

Just to give scale, Paris to Warsaw is about 1,500km. Warsaw to Moscow is another 1,200km. The territory between Warsaw and Moscow is probably also much more sparsely populated, a lot rougher with much less infrastructure. If I remember my history books, that part of Eastern Europe is basically swamp in the summer, frozen wasteland in the winter. Makes even supply lines tough let alone actual combat.

3/27/2014 9:45:26 AM

I think that a bigger problem in WWII was the English Channel, not the vast space and cold in Russia. People forget that the UK basically got to perch up comfy in their fort while bombing the shit out of Germany because their offensive positions were just too out of range and laregely untouchable by the German Navy/Airforce. Had the channel not been there, the Brits would have surrendered when the Germans marched into Paris, and then everything would have just been more focused on Russia.

3/30/2014 6:48:21 AM

Was there a tactical reason for Germany invading Russia before coming to peace with the UK?

Never understood why they willingly choose to open up the eastern front in the midst of an existing conflict.

3/30/2014 4:19:03 PM

The Germans just assumed that the Britts would back out once Paris fell. Everybody prolly thought that, but since the Britts had brilliantly placed their manufactoring industries in northern england, they had sufficient enough high ground to keep going.

I'm not an expert on this period at all though, but I do think that that was one of the biggest blunders in the war. Prolly just bad betting mixed together with a German Superiority Complex.

[Edited on March 31, 2014 at 2:36 AM. Reason : f]

3/31/2014 2:29:09 AM

Ideologically Hitler wanted nothing more than to crush Russia/Stalin/Bolshevism.

Besides the natural resources and breeding room he was convinced he could get the western powers to view him as the last bastion against the red hoardes, and actually envisioned Britain as an ally in such a conflict.

When they were all like "nerp" then we got two fronts.

After Germany surrendered Patton wanted to pick up where the Nazis left off, doing his best impression of General Turgidson from Dr Strangelove, but then he was killed in a car wreck before it could happen.

4/1/2014 9:54:21 AM

I just finished a biography of Hitler by Ian Kershaw. Its dense, but I got a lot of free time on my hands. Anyway, he made an excellent case for the idea that Hitler invaded the USSR when he did not so much to crush it outright but because he thought that success there would make Britain drop out of the war and possibly cause the allies to join him in a global crusade against communism. It even suggests that he didn't expect to achieve victory on his own but once his gamble to win allies fell he was kind of stuck with it, and right up until he ate a lead salad in the bunker he thought that the allies would turn on the commies and use his generals/armies against them, sparing his regime.

Just, you know, as an opposing theory to what is presented here. It's not relevant to the thread.

4/1/2014 4:48:42 PM

That sounds a bit too sympathetic to the Germans IMO.

4/2/2014 6:48:58 AM

If you filter out the whole killing jew/holocaust issue, who was the lesser of the two evils???

Let's not forget Stalin killed a shit ton more people than Hitler granted though he had more time. Although his was targetting people more for political reasons than being of a specific ethnicity, lifestyle choice, or disability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

[Edited on April 2, 2014 at 8:38 AM. Reason : a]

4/2/2014 8:37:49 AM

The Soviet Union certainly got the blessing of being on the winning side of history, as Stalin and his practices were worse, given the scale. though it is a bit silly to argue who is "worse" between Hitler and Stalin as they are essentially one in the same, but Stalin and the USSR being part of the Allies saved them the "monsterization" that Hitler and Germany got from losing. yes, the Nazi killing of "untermensch" is an evil beyond comprehension, but Stalin was no better during the Purge and Stalinization.

Hitler's mistake was not waiting on the war with Britain to play out before invading the USSR. his best case scenario would have been an armistice with Britain, then invading the USSR as "liberators" rather than conquering territory to carry out his insane Final Solution. it would have spared him American involvement, and could have possibly convinced Japan to fight against Russia instead of attacking the US. a reverse two front war with Japan and Germany pincering Russia is more likely to favor the Axis.

at any rate, Russia now is practically surrounded by the "Allies". I doubt China would choose sides in the conflict. Putin wants to reform the USSR, but he needs to accept the fact that Russia isn't going to have a "buffer" between itself and Europe anymore. he also needs to accept the fact that they don't need one.

4/2/2014 2:31:45 PM

Quote :

"That sounds a bit too sympathetic to the Germans IMO."

How do you figure? It doesn't claim they were fighting a good fight, it just explains their rationale for doing an otherwise ill-timed and foolish thing, ie invading Russia when they did.

There's not any point in comparing Hitler and Stalin. Mao killed more than either of them, the references to purges leave out the Holodomor, and all of this aside, who cares? I just wanted to provide a reason for why Germany attacked the USSR when it did.

Quote :

"Hitler's mistake was not waiting on the war with Britain to play out before invading the USSR."

This is Kershaw's point. The Nazi leadership, including Hitler, was surprised that Britain fought at all. Prior to Molotov-ribbentrop, the goal had been an alliance (or at least favorable treaty) with the UK. They were surprised when Britain defended Poland, surprised again when it didn't collapse after the fall of France, and surprised a third time when they didn't end the war and side with German against the Soviets after Barbarossa.

4/2/2014 6:07:23 PM

^ Lots of people (and "scholars") search for different routes and ways to argue that the actions of the Third Reich were originally for the good of the German people that just got out of hand. However, it was racial clensing pure and simple. People couldn't believe it then, and some still have a hard time believeing it now. You can try to compare it to the Purge, which is idiotic in itself, but even that on a basic level could be seen as a politcal civil war. This was just ridding the world of unpure bloodlines by a society of people that never had to adjust to immigration like the rest of Europe, which is largely because Germany stayed out of the whole colonialism game for the most part.

So, basically, any arguments that try to convey the idea that some sort of greater good was involved in anything that the Third Reich did or intended to do, is just a bit dubious at best. It could very well be that every thing was done, including invading Russia, to cleanse the world of non-German blood.

4/3/2014 5:30:16 AM

Overall I agree with that, but you're forgetting that the entire conflict started with Germany reclaiming land from other countries that had historically been German territory. The intention with that wasn't racial cleansing.

4/3/2014 9:05:38 AM

Germany "stayed out of the whole colonialism game for the most part?"

What are you, fucking stupid?

Oh yeah, you both have a PhD and live in Germany (supposedly).

Good grief.

[Edited on April 3, 2014 at 9:16 AM. Reason : -]

4/3/2014 9:11:01 AM

What countries in Africa, South America, North America or Asia were previously colonised by Germany? Compare that to what the French, British, Dutch, Belgian, Spanish, and Portugesse did to see my point.

4/3/2014 9:24:47 AM

I saw your sack, and therefore will never see another point of yours again.

4/3/2014 9:35:08 AM

^(if you look closely it is actually a pink speedo that I borrowed from my friend Trevor.)

[Edited on April 3, 2014 at 9:59 AM. Reason : l]

4/3/2014 9:59:23 AM

No thanks.

4/3/2014 10:02:56 AM

Quote :

"It could very well be that every thing was done, including invading Russia, to cleanse the world of non-German blood."

Hold the fucking phone. This is recent, well-documented history. You don't get to say "it could very well be" here. The motherfuckers wrote shit down, and some of them lived to be asked about it later.

Since this thread is now so wildly off course anyway, let's get into it.

Quote :

" to argue that the actions of the Third Reich were originally for the good of the German people that just got out of hand. However, it was racial clensing pure and simple."

In the mind of a nazi those aren't mutually exclusive. Kicking out undesirables is good for the German people, to them. But that's neither here nor there. The Holocaust is distinct from the strategic military planning I was trying to talk about. There's no evidence that they invaded Russia (or anywhere else) because they just couldn't wait to get their hands on the Jews living there. There is, however, quite a bit of evidence that they invaded in the hope of ending the war.

Likewise, there is a mountain of evidence that Hitler wanted war -- just not when it came. He'd had a long string of successes calling the allies' bluffs on the rhineland, sudetenland, austria, czech, and every indicator suggests he thought he'd succeed again with the Polish corridor. There are plenty of documents in which he and the high command say outright that they are planning for a European war -- in 1945. When it started in 1939, they said, "Oh, shit."

Quote :

"This was just ridding the world of unpure bloodlines by a society of people that never had to adjust to immigration like the rest of Europe, which is largely because Germany stayed out of the whole colonialism game for the most part."

Where were the tons of immigrants in the rest of Europe? People from the colonies weren't exactly encouraged to come live in France or the UK. Meanwhile Germany had long been integrated into an empire that included Poles, slavs, czechs, Jews, Italians, Hungarians...the list goes on.

And "Germany stayed out" of colonialism? Don't be an asshole. Germany didn't exist as a country until the colonialism game was almost over, and then they desperately tried to get in on it. They nearly started wars with France over trying to take Morocco, and the US and UK over islands in the Pacific. "A place in the sun" is a famous imperialist phrase, originating with Kaiser Wilhelm II. They colonized Togo (right next door to me), Cameroon, Namibia, and Tanganyika (now most of Tanzania). They held part of New Guinea, cities in China, and a number of Pacific islands.

No, sir, Germany got into the imperialism game.

---

Now, let me synthesize this simply:

Nobody is claiming that the Nazis weren't so bad, or that they were just trying to act for the greater good of the German people. But it is ludicrous to think, as you apparently do, that their every military decision was based on a desire to fulfill the final solution (which was not actually formulated until the war was well underway). That isn't the case. There's no evidence supporting it. Military decisions were taken for military reasons. Poland was attacked in surprise that territory wasn't ceded to them (and in fact, Hitler had tried to ally with Poland beforehand). France was attacked in surprise that France actually followed through with their treaty obligations. Russia was attacked in hope that its defeat would cause Britain to declare an armistice. Etc., etc.

4/3/2014 3:47:45 PM

I wonder if Hitler knew that Japan was going to bomb Pearl Harbor, bringing the US into the game prior to closing the Eastern Front......

4/3/2014 4:53:33 PM

No, he was surprised and pissed.

And thank God someone else told that dumb cunt banjoman what's what.

4/3/2014 6:18:42 PM

Why not wait and hold off extermination until after the war. They could have gotten a lot of supply from work camps instead of using so many resources rounding up and slaughtering people for no gain.

4/3/2014 6:53:18 PM

Fundamentally there isn't a need for Russia to invate the EU countries, they generally don't have the natural resources he needs, nor does he need ownership of their manufacturing capacity currently.

If Russia is smart, they will continue to consolidate and re establish control of any oil or natural resource rich countries in the area, while the EU and the USA sit back and bitch.

4/3/2014 11:39:23 PM

Quote :

"And "Germany stayed out" of colonialism? Don't be an asshole. Germany didn't exist as a country until the colonialism game was almost over, and then they desperately tried to get in on it. "

Of course this is the reason, but the fact still remains that they missed out on that bus compared to the rest of Europe.

Quote :

"They colonized Togo (right next door to me), Cameroon, Namibia, and Tanganyika (now most of Tanzania). They held part of New Guinea, cities in China, and a number of Pacific islands. "

Wouldn't you say that this is just peanuts compared to what everyone else did during colonialism? Think about it logically, German is only spoken in Europe (in only three countries) for a reason. They did not get their hands on that much territory and certainly did not get to hold onto these areas for very long due to WWI. The point still remains that had Germany been unified during colonialism and accomplished more, they might have grown more accustomed to imigration.

[Edited on April 4, 2014 at 3:13 AM. Reason : f]

4/4/2014 2:53:20 AM

I miss talking to Grumpy about this stuff. Somehow Pancho Villa use to always come up in the conversation.

Like, if the people of Ukraine had a Pancho Villa, then they could take on Russia mano-a-mano.

4/4/2014 4:39:06 AM

^^you have no idea what youre talking about

4/4/2014 7:47:59 AM

I think that you are missing my higher level thought process because you take issue with my generalizations.

[Edited on April 4, 2014 at 8:07 AM. Reason : h]

4/4/2014 8:06:07 AM

^^great post

4/4/2014 8:10:38 AM

Quote :

"Why not wait and hold off extermination until after the war. They could have gotten a lot of supply from work camps instead of using so many resources rounding up and slaughtering people for no gain."

I kind of wondered this myself....

Although towards the end it was obvious they were simply trying to mop up the Jews before losing. Early on though seems like a waste of SS man-power rounding "undesirables" up that could have been laborers in the factory or cannon fodder on the eastern front.

4/4/2014 8:55:32 AM

yep higher level thought processes

thats it exactly

4/4/2014 12:34:35 PM

Quote :

"Why not wait and hold off extermination until after the war."

Because dictator or no, the Nazi government was not unified. Hitler liked having different parts of the regime play off of each other, both to prevent them uniting against him and because of some perverse social darwinism he embraced -- the best departments would win out in the end. So there was one element of his government, primarily involving the SS and occupation authorities, that more-or-less independently pursued the final solution as we know it today. Certain parts of it did infiltrate the military, particularly in Russia where being a Communist official (or Jewish, and thus presumed Communist) was considered a direct military threat. But the camps and shit like that? That was one branch of Hitler's regime trying to please Hitler, without consulting anybody else or worrying about other issues -- in this case, the winning of the war.

Quote :

"Wouldn't you say that this is just peanuts compared to what everyone else did during colonialism?"

It's more than Portugal or Spain had at the time, and even when those countries had empires they had negligible immigration -- remember, all the indians were dead and the ones that weren't were being converted to death or forced to work on plantations. In the late 1800s -- the relevant generation -- they had a couple of puny African colonies.

And you haven't addressed the fact that neither France nor the UK had what anybody would call abundant immigration from their colonies. Some colonial officers would have had experience working with other races in their milieu, yes, but in neither case were those officers particularly fond of the people they oversaw, nor were they numerous.

I don't think there was anything inherent in the German psyche in the 30s and 40s that made genocide appealing -- and neither did Hitler and his crew, which is why they went to some lengths to keep it hidden from German people. Latent anti-semitic ideas -- present in most of Europe -- were a necessary condition but they were not sufficient. They made room for some of the other racial ideologies, but they did not guide military policy and were not by themselves enough to make the Holocaust happen. For that you needed competition between agencies vying for Hitler's favor. Even he doesn't talk about extermination as much as you might think. People present it to him, and he quietly says, "Yeah, sounds good."

4/4/2014 5:12:39 PM

do you ww2/hitler buffs know about this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3684288.stm

4/20/2014 9:53:28 PM

set em up ---------->

4/21/2014 12:25:53 AM