At least,in a game,you know that even 1st is on the other continent,if it is growing out of control,it can also end your game in total failure.In reality,only after 46 years,USSR collapsed.So I have to consider everything again,as Stalin did not want this happen.
I'm getting sick of you positing Stalin's actions as if he would have the benefit of hindsight. If I were Og, Caveman Emperor, I'd go to the nearest dungheap and discover gunpowder, since the magic of hindsight lets me know how to get my hands on it, and create my global musket-weilding, rocket-propelling, grenade-launching, cannon-firing Caveman Empire (come to think of it, that would be pretty awesome).
You cannot posit Stalin knowing any more than Stalin actually knew at the time. The same with Hitler. You cannot say; "If I were Napoleon I would build steamships, since I know that my fleet will be destroyed at Trafalgar and I do not want this to happen." If you are Napoleon, you don't know a damn thing about what's going to happen to your fleet at Trafalgar, you can only act on the knowledge you possess
at the time.
Yes,in 1941,USSR also had more troops than Nazi,but Stalin forgot to show them in front of Hitler!According to all the documents I can find,before the war,Hitler completely misjudged USSR's military strength,as in his plan,USSR only had less than 200 divisions,in fact it was more than 300.So if Stalin knew that he had to show all his troops to make Hitler afraid,he could prevent the war from beginning,and the war would not happen for ever.
In warfare, it is traditional to NOT let your enemy know everything there is to know about your military. Makes it a little harder for their pre-emptive strike to completely knock out your ability to fight back. In fact, Hitler had a very good estimate of Russia's overall strength in men and materiel, he simply underestimated the quality of the Soviet military, in large part due to Russia's poor performance in the Winter War.
Of course,if Hitler knew the real strength of USSR,he would give up from beginning.
Hitler's generals advised him he could not win a war when he actually started WWII in September 1939, and even planned a coup to prevent his occupation of Czechoslovakia. Hitler was notorious for ignoring the advice of his own staff and making decisions based on ideology rather than rationality. The attack on the USSR in 1941 is a prime example, as the USSR had actually made a very enticing offer to
join the Axis as a full partner with Germany, Italy and Japan. If Hitler knew Russia's strength to a man, he'd likely still attack, it'd just be organised better. Though Operation: Barbarossa was pretty well-planned as it was.
And the reason why I can allow Hitler to attack Middle East is that I can always keep him in that condition,yes,he might invade me if he thought he was the stronger side,but in fact,he was not,so I could put down his ambition by maintaining far more troops than Nazi and showing them in front of Hitler.
What makes you think that Germany conquering the Middle East wouldn't make it FAR STRONGER than the USSR? You seem to think that Germany conquering large swathes of territory, including territory integral to the security of Russia and full of absolutely vital natural resources wouldn't give it an advantage over Russia. Of course it would.
The real reason the US invaded Iraq in the First Gulf War was because Iraq's seizure of Kuwait's oil-fields gave them a long, under-defended border border with the sparsely populated, militarily weak Saudi Arabia. If Saddam Hussein had followed up the invasion of Kuwait with a similar invasion of Saudi Arabia he would control nearly half of the world's oil supply. Do you honestly believe that giving
that sort of power to a belligerent Germany wouldn't result in it becoming far, far strongert than the USSR?
The USSR was not an autarky; it relied on foreign trade, albeit less than many other countries. Germany, on the other hand, was
entirely dependent upon Russia for most of its natural resources; the German war machine was built by Russian metal and rubber, fed on Russian grain and ran on Russian oil. If Germany conquered the Middle East, it would, in one stroke;
1. Remove its dependency upon Russia for natural resources by gaining access to Middle Eastern oil and grain.
2. Cripple the British Empire, Russia's main potential ally, by taking away its oil supply and dominance of the Mediterranean, probably forcing a capitulation. In this situation, Britain, under a pro-Nazi collaborationist government, as in France, would be a Russian
enemy in the advent of war between Russia and Germany, not an ally.
3. Possess the ability to blockade Russia's only warm-water ports, the Ukrainian ports on the Black Sea, by closing the Zone of the Straits to Russian shipping.
4. Gain a new border with Russia critically close to the crucial Caucasus oil-fields of Russia, rendering them vulnerable to a surprise attack. A similar surprise attack by Russia accross the Caucasus would be useless, as the Middle Eastern oilfields would be protected well behind the German-Russian border, as opposed to very close to it on the Russian side.
5. Overnight become the most powerful nation in the world, probably the most powerful the world had ever seen (even stronger than the US at its strongest), with an Empire stretching from France to India, and the British and French Empires as vassal states, forced to do its bidding.
If you believe Stalin could allow Hitler such power, you are an idiot. There's no other way to say it; if you believe this, then you are a fool. No-one could possibly believe that any world leader could stand by and allow himself to backed into such a corner. It would be like standing still and allowing a person to walk around you, systematically loading guns and pointing them at your head, all the while carrying a remote he could use to set them off at any time. Russia would have no choice but to surrender in such a situation, without even putting up a fight, as a Germany with that much power could eat it for breakfast. As such, Stalin would have no choice but to attack germany if it even looked like invading Turkey, and Hitler knew this, which is why he would never invade Turkey without first neutralising Russia.
Fortunately, since Germany was completely incapable of conquering the Middle East - the materiel used for Operation: Barbarossa was inadequate for the task of conquering the Middle East - this is complete pie-in-the-sky Grade A nonsense. Turkey alone culd put up a fine fight against Germany. Factoring in the British and Free French presence in the Middle East results in a humiliating German defeat, even if Stalin spent the entire war with his thumb firmly embedded in his arse.
As for your claim that Russia could simply produce more weapons than Germany, it's false. German productive capacity outstripped Russia's. The longer both nations prepared for war, assuming an adequate flow of natural resources, Germany would close the gap and eventually surpass Russia.
In fact,if USSR could win the war against Finland,and show the real strength of their army,I believe Hitler would not invade USSR at all.
Hitler's long-term goal was always the invasion and conquest of the Soviet Union. He said so in Mein Kampff. If Hitler completely ignored the advice of his generals when it came to starting a war with Britain and France, why the hell would he listen to them regarding Russia, which, in his eyes, was populated by sub-human Slavs (
untermenschen) who were destined to be conquered and ruled by his Aryan supermen (
ubermenschen)?
Hitler was not rational; he viewed the world through a twisted ideological prism, in which Germany was destined to achieve all of his goals. Part of the reason for the London Blitz was Hitler throwing a tantrum when Britain didn't fall into line as his warped mindset demanded that it would.
Also, as yet another death-knell in your argument; Russia DID defeat Finland. Learn some damn history before you make piss-poor attempts to re-write it.
When the infighting between Shu and Wu occured,Wei was already at a limit,as if Wu chose to attack Wei instead of Shu,Wei would suffer a great defeat,and even lost 1st place.Only several months before,Wei lost over 100,000 soldiers in Hanzhong,and their leader,Cao Cao,would die only after a very short period.
Wei was far stronger than either Wu or Shu. You're also forgetting that if Wu and Shu were miraculously able to conquer Wei, it would simply result in one of them becoming more powerful than the other, making it dominant. Better to have one superpower balanced by two allied smaller powers than one great power and one weakened, easily-defeated one.
In the second world war,USSR was really 2nd,and Nazi was 3rd,UK was 4th and Japan was 5th,1st was USA.The production of weapon could prove that.UK was not as strong as in your mind.
Wrong. At the outbreak of WWII, Britain was the strongest nation in the world, with France in 2nd place.
Then came the US, followed by the USSR. Germany was a mere 5th (if we're doing this stupid list) Japan was a distant 6th. The United Kingdom was the strongest nation in the history of the world; you have heard of the British Empire, haven't you? If you make a claim, back it up with some sources, so I can point out how you've misjudged them or how they're wrong by bringing up other sources.
And the strength of India was laughable at that time,you should realize that UK force suffered great defeat when they were attacked by Japanese,and they lost whole Southeast Asia only in several months.How could such an army hold India firmly when they were attacked by USSR?
India was the Jewel of the British Empire. It was defended almost as heavily as Britain itself. The Japanese defeat of Britain in Southeast Asia was due to naval airpower. In short, Japan had planes they could use to bomb things, and the British had no way of bombing them back. Japan also had a vast numerical superiority in the area, and was hitting poorly defended positions. You'll also note that Japan
didn't conquer India. They were stopped in the far less important and more sparsely-defended Burma.
The USSR would be attacking the far more heavily defended India, and doing so through such rugged terrain as Afghanistan and/or Tibet. You may have noticed that it's quite difficult to drive tanks over mountains, and Russia possessed nothing comparable to Japan's vast aerial superiority over the British in Southeast Asia. Even though Russia had a sizable airforce, it couldn't operate over the vast distances necessary for an invasion of India, and moving the aircraft to even attempt such an invasion would give the British time to make their defences even stronger. Also, the Indians themselves, who volunteered to fight Japan in huge numbers, would volunteer to fight Russia in even greater numbers. The Indian Nationalist movements were actually on very good relations with Japan, yet still fought it. They hated Communists, as did pretty much everyone who wasn't a Communist at this point.
For the native troops,I could tell you that they were useless at that time,as in 1962 it was proved by a war against China.Luckily,India lost nothing in that war(at that time,China was isolated,and could not get better result as both superpowers were against that,otherwise I believe India would be conquered if Mao really wanted to do that),and later their leader made a lot of changes,increased military strength,and won the war against Pakistan.
There's a line from the movie,
The Hangover: "You are literally too stupid to insult."
Are you actually comparing the defeat of India
in 1962, 20 years after the time we're discussing, by a modern, experienced fighting force in the Chinese army, which had been fighting for decades, accross a sparsely defended border, with a Russian attempt to invade the country, through Afghanistan and/or Tibet, accross mountainous terrain, with ample warning - it's somewhat difficult to have the element of surprise when you have to cross half a continent to arrive at your destination? The native Indian troops served with distinction throughout the Empire for decades. They served effectively against the Japanese and the Germans, and would have done so against the Russians.
China caught India by surprise in a limited war. China didn't want to conquer India, and had no chance in hell of doing so even if the US and USSR were drinking at the time and gave their consent. China possessed the ability to defeat India in a limited war over a small amount of territory, but certainly couldn't have successfully invaded India proper. There are only several small passes through which Chinese troops could invade, and most of them aren't large enough for a massive amount of military forces anyway. A larger invasion of India would have been beaten back.
China's victory was in large part because they achieved their goals before India was able to prepare themseles and counter-attack. In a prolonged war, India could successfully defend itself easily. The fact is, those territories are unimportant to India, but important to China. If China did not hold those territories, India could invade Tibet any time it wished, but on China's side of the border they provide a suitable buffer-zone. They're similar to the Golan Heights in that respect, except that even if India doesn't possess them, it still has numerous other natural defences in the area, while Israel and Syria clearly do not.
This is vastly different to a Soviet invasion of India 20 years earlier. For that matter, it's vastly different to the India-Pakistan Wars, since India and Pakistan have very different borders to India and China; they're much easier to send troops accross.
In fact,I suppose that all the leaders are sitting together in Heaven,and replaying the world war two again.It's clear that Hitler would make change first,as now he would not invade USSR from beginning.And Stalin would support his decision,as it could prevent USA from domination and even save USSR from collapse.Of course,that's unfair,as all the sides already know the results of at least one route.With these informations,USA might attend the war earlier,and UK,France might prepare for the war more carefully and aviod the defeat,Japan would not launch Pacific war from beginning,but USA might launch the war first.(When you know you can win a war easily,you may launch it instead of waiting for your opponent to launch the war for you,as they also know they will suffer defeat.)
Yes, it's not only unfair, but an incredibly stupid way in which to look at alternate history. If I had hindsight, I'd do things differently in my life, and I'm not a bloody world leader. Stop doing it, it's not even close to proper historiography.
I'm done here. Unless your next post actually makes sense and is backed up by pertinent sources, I'm done talking to someone as delusional and misinformed as you. As I've said before, you should probably learn a little about history before you start making piss-poor attempts to re-write it.
sorry sir. my Byzantine Republic is a Work in progress, and i wanted it to be as close to the OT as possible.
I'm sorry too. I shouldn't have been so harsh with you, but I tend to respond to you right after zhaoshuais, and his posts are the ones which truly aggravate me.
