Is a Russo-German Alliance unbeatable?

Without the USA, China, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, but with the rest of the world, Germany and Russia cannot be beaten?

Well again, there are dozens of ways in which defeat is possible ... but I think that would be the exceptions to a normal assumption that yes they would be close to being impervious to just about all alliances. Chine is a non-factor in most situations. A-H is a most a speed bump, but likely a non-factor as well. Italy would not make much of a different if lined up against Gerussia and only real influence would be to potentially hasten the fall of A-H and/or France when aligned with Gerussia. The USA has the potential to make the biggest impact but I don't see much chance of the US pouring the titanic resources required to take down Gerussia (let alone the blood and manpower) in either a WW1 situation or WW2 era scenario. But ... I repeat myself. Like OW stated: If Germany and Russia don't have completely incompetent leadership (as in OTL) then they should have a happy relationship.
 
http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/index.htm

specific atlases: http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/AtlasesTableOfContents.html

you can check out the asian theatre atlas and Chinese civil war atlas.

These atlases along with the ones at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ and the maps at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/index.html#usa taken together are usually a wonderful resource. It's a pity the related maps across all 3 websites can't be put together into a mega-atlas.

Yes, nice sources. I still fail to see any maps that contradict as opposed to directly support my contentions that 1) the communists had been reduced to irrelevance post Long March, and 2) they were able to rebuild thanks to protection from the Nationalists within the Japanese occupied zone.

Which is what you just said. That's why I think you two were talking past each other.

Umm, no. I said invading Iran from India (with logistics handled by shipping on the Persian Gulf) is as difficult as invading Iran from Central Asia (with logistics handled by shipping across the Caspian). Invading India from Central Asia using Iran as a springboard is so difficult as to be impossible and completely incomparable.

The original question doesn't even imply that either the Nazis or the Soviets have to be around in the 1930s and 1940s, just for there to be a Russo-German alliance. Weimar Germany and the Soviet Union cooperated in the 1920s, so we could end up with a Weimar-Soviet alliance. However, such an alliance would need a POD in the 1920s that forestalled the rise of the Nazis and such a POD might have knock on effects all the way to East Asia. A Nazi-Soviet alliance however cannot occur before the Nazis run Germany so either the POD would be post-1933 (by which point it would be impossible to ignore the factors about China and Japan since everything pre-1933 would have occurred as in OTL) or the POD would be pre-1933 and assuming an earlier rise to power of the Nazis (maybe in the 1920s). If you are discussing a pre-1933 POD then I would be perfect willing to accept a strong China and no Sino-Japanese conflict. However if the POD is post-1933 and especially post-1937 then I'm sorry, but I can't handwave away the 1890s-1937 Sino-Japanese relations and the state of China between the 1910s and 1937.

But the original question does ask whether the German Russian combination is unbeatable, not whether it is possible to craft some sort of Russian German alliance that is unbeatable. If you are willing to handwave to somehow get a Nazi-Germany and Soviet Russia that aren't virulent ideological enemies and incredibly distrusting of each other, why are you so opposed to the less handwaving required to get China useable as a counterweight?

So this easy?

Well for this scenario to work it requires the following prerequisites:

1. The USA entering on the side of the Allies (which in turn probably requires something done by the Russo-German or specifically Nazi-Soviet alliance unless Japan did what it did in OTL; but then if Japan is on the side of Britain there would probably be no Pearl Harbour and no US entry....leaving Britain, Japan and France to fight Germany, Italy, the USSR and China)

2. Britain not accepting an end to the war before either (1.) occurs or before 1946.

3. Tungsten not being obtained from elsewhere like China for instance (including areas in northern Xinjiang over which the Nationalist government experienced only intermittent control and which at times was Soviet-oriented or influenced) or even the Soviet Union. Neutral China or Allied Japan though would not be good for Allied efforts to corner Iberian tungsten exports.

EDIT: This scenario also hinges on the assumption that tungsten will be used up at the same rate or greater than in OTL between 1939 and 1944-1946. However in OTL a lot of ammunition being used by Germany was being used up on the Eastern Front from 1941-1944 which wouldn't be happening in any of these TLs. Russia/the Soviet Union also wouldn't be utilizing tungsten as much since it may end up not having any major fronts comparable to OTL's Eastern Front. Outside of North Africa and the Middle East the only other possible major theatre (unless France doesn't fall) would be in Asia against China and Japan and there the situation could range from Russo-German neutrality in the whole affair (especially if German-Japanese relations cool due to a German alliance with the USSR) to active engagement against China (in which tungsten would be used up as rapidly if not more with less alternatives) or against Japan (tungsten would be used up rapidly as well, but China would form an alternate source).

Wait, wait. You are now going with no U.S. in the counter alliance either? Clearly, you've completely left the discussion of whether a German-Russian and to be more exact a Nazi-Soviet alliance is unbeatable and into the realm of whether a handwaved German-Russian alliance of your creation is unbeatable by a handwaved counter alliance of your creation specifically crafted so it could not win. I mean, that's not worth much discussion even in its own thread, much less in a thread of whether Gerussia is unbeatable.

As a sidenote, you probably should know that Germany restricted tungsten use to industry as early as 42 as a part of Speer's rationalizations. And it is the industrial use that is sufficiently critical to force aggression to prevent running out, not use in ammunition that could be reduced by there being less fighting.

It really isn't necessary to play dumb or be that sarcastic. At no point did I ever claim that nukes were "land-based allies". If you want to dodge the point, fine. I'm quite sure that from a few pages back there were parallel discussions on land-based allies and unconventional weapons, but if you think you need to conflate them for whatever reason, that is your business.

It's hardly dodging the point when 1) you claimed that land-based allies are necessary for victory, 2) brought up the Pacific War, and 3) claimed that there are no historical examples of victory without land-based allies contributing (a lot) to victory. (all stated or directly implied in post 100) Which is what I responded to, pointing out that (2) directly contradicts (1) and (3).

If you wish to concede your claims as to the necessity of land-based allies in all wars and that history shows this to be the case, then we can move on to how critical land-based allies would be against the Nazi-Soviet combo and what options there are for fulfilling said needs.

One side does not have to beat another side in order to remain unbeaten (it's a similar concept to win, lose, draw and tie in sports). If Japan had "lost completely" then why were there plans to invade the Home Islands or even to starve the Home Islands? Japan couldn't have completely lost if the Allies were contemplating further action. If Japan had "already lost completely" then why on earth did Truman order the dropping of two atomic bombs? Couldn't have been just for fun.

Wait, so now having a quarter of your population dead before spring and more dying steadily thereafter until the population bottoms out at what a pre-industrial society could sustain counts as "unbeaten?" Do you not comprehend the fact that every road leads to defeat for Japan long before the atomic bombs were dropped, and those bombs as well as any alternatives just change how that defeat comes to pass and how many Japanese need die? Are you seriously contending that Japan could somehow get better terms than total surrender by starving to death?

It's not any sillier than considering scenarios that totally disregard decades of Sino-Japanese relations and Chinese history on top of other unlikely scenarios. Obviously it would be a separate scenario and one which is highly unlikely since it would require a total different start to the Pacific War (and thus mean that the Pacific War would have been prosecuted differently). But then such a scenario isn't much different than a War Plan Orange on steroids.

Umm no. One is a case of direct cause and effect. If Japan is not invading China, then it has no need to invade the South. The other just requires handwaving, less handwaving than needed to disregard centuries of German ambition to expand Eastwards and the ideological hatred between Nazism and Communism. After all, significant elements of the leadership in both China and Japan were quite friendly throughout the 20s.

Excellent point. One with which I can agree wholeheartedly. It demonstrates the point that raw numbers isn't all that matters in an environment which needs to be supplied via ship. Likewise, it should be patently clear that naval superiority alone cannot win a war against major land based powers/continental powers without an extremely large and secure lodgment on the same continent/bit of land in which those powers are located and without the necessary numbers of soldiers to ensure that the lodgment is not only prevented from being pushed back into the sea, but to ensure that the other power or powers are actually defeated. Given that the Allies never considered any of their continental landings to be sure things despite the numbers they had in OTL, why would such landings be considered to have the same chance of success if Germany didn't have hundreds of divisions and millions of soldiers engaged on the Eastern Front and also had the fillip of having millions of Soviet soldiers also engaged in guarding or repelling such a coastal invasion in any scenario where the Allies don't have major land-based allies?

I must have missed where I suggested a landing in France would be successful. You know, considering that the strategy I posited was landing/engaging around the periphery in environments that need be supplied by ship or not be supplied/supplied poorly. Like North Africa, the Med Islands, the ME, and Anatolia, and to a lesser extent, Iberia/Scandinavia/Balkans. Fact is, without the former and under blockade, Gerussia will suffer industrial collapse by the 50s while if denied the latter as well, that would be moved up to the late 40s. Which is why unbeatable is a term that cannot be used for the Nazi-Soviet iteration of possible German/Russian alliances.
 
Agreed with the above. A Russo-German alliance going into the equivalent of WW1 to me is just about unbeatable. And an easy POD exists, but it’s one that has to take place in the late 19th century to predate the cozy Franco ventures. Either have Bismarck avoid one glaring mistake in choosing A-H in 1879 or find a way to continue Reinsurance Treaty until a political environment can be cultivated as to transform it into a public relationship/alliance. It's much hard to even theorize a way for them to lose a continental war as long as the alliance holds. For starters, like mentioned this is going to be a one front war for Germany after the Hapsburgs are dispatched. Likely after this central front theater resolved you will have several former Hapsburg Slavic regions bolster the ranks of Germany and Russia even further. With such an alliance you are going to add the manpower of the entire Russian Empire to German forces. That empire is going to be fed technology, industrial assistance, and military partnership as well. Add to that is the fact that you basically eliminate most of the reasons for the Revolution so we are likely not to see a Russia familiar to OTL at all.

Germany secure in her single front, supplied with resources from Russia, boosted by manpower ... will be very difficult for whatever can be stacked against them. Say you have the UK, France, Austria, Italy, the Turks, and even Romania ... I don't see them being able to win under any normal scenario of a Russian, German, Serbian, Bulgarian heavy weight alliance. Even if you find a way to isolate one of the two such as seeing the Russians run off and get caught in some kind of quagmire chase for Constantinople, leaving Germany to face the entire front alone I would still wager on German victory.

Like the question above ... Would there be a war? A-H would have to be forced into such a war as she has to know certain defeat is at her doorstep (literally) and thus I tend to think a war around this time is avoided. In such a peace time Germany puts more and more pressure on A-H until she implodes in separatist movements while Russia is free to keep pressuring the Turks and encroaching little by little supporting various parts of the Ottoman regime to rebel. The French continually backed against the wall (Atlantic) and with fewer and fewer geopolitical options are in a very difficult position. Possibly desperately cultivating emergency relationships with Spain (?) and trying in vain to bring the UK into a full military alliance.

The British eventually probably have to turn their attention west to the US and working to grow a new strategic partnership with a counter Anglo-American sphere of power to the Russo-German one. If war breaks out I don't see good things for France coming out of it and the end result being a Western Europe dominated economically (if not politically) by Germany and Russia carving up and steering the Balkans and Anatolia under her wings and potentially turning interest and eyes onto China. If the two play nice, then things work out for them. If they turn on each other ... that would be one hell of a fight.

I'll have to disagree with most of the thread here as it arguably makes Germany and Russia's position. We have to remember that Germany went with Austria over Russia for a reason. It changes the whole diplomatic picture and small details that certainly add up. I hate to quote myself but I have to add that...

~There are a ton of threads of why a quick victory against France is difficult with Germany's 1914 plan... so that leaves a quick plan against AH?

~AH has a worse position but much better army as OTL France loaned millions of francs to Russia to assist it in speeding up industrialization and infrastructure... money that will be going to AH who OTL did the heavy lifting against Russia early in the war when Germany sent 90% of it's forces to France. ITTL we have a weaker Russia and stronger AH.

~AH will not just implode from internal troubles right away - take a look at the main minorities

*Czechs - okay they are arguably the most noisy.
*Polish Galatians - will support AH because of the opposing sides - both Germany and Russia oppose any Polish power.
*Slovenes, Slovaks - relatively quiet.
*Croats - not knowledgeable to know about it.
*Magyars - have their own thing going on, what is there to complain about?

~Italy will stay probably neutral despite it's claims against the Allies as it has a worse position than AH - the southern part will be isolated against rails, with a peninsula country being totally blockaded on all sides - both land and sea. No naval admiral would support an alliance with this Russian-German alliance.

~Russia's position is worse. Fights many fronts. Less capital from France (who Germany will not make up with) means less everything nationally built from Russia.

~There will be no "gang-pile" of the Balkans against AH - it does not make any diplomatic sense. There seems to be a mentality that just because they were Slavic Orthodox (not always the case...) that they are immediately allied against the OE and AH and with Russia. A popular PoD is Bismark going pro-Russia at the Berlin-Conference creating a super Bulgaria but recall the Bulgarians did not want to be a client of anyone


*Serbia - formerly a client state of AH before the Balkan Wars - there was a war in which if Bulgaria did not leave the Serbs alone, AH would be willing to intervene on their behalf. Certainly on the French-AH side here (the Balkan Wars dramatically changed the Balkan's geopolitics where Serbia became increasing pro-Russian.)

*Greece - a British ally with no reason to change here.

*Romania - held territorial ambitions against AH, Russia, and Bulgaria in that particular order. It was split on what to do so it joined opportunistically against AH OTL which failed it drastically. Had a pro-French populace and a Pro-Austrian king which would put it in....

*Bulgaria - joined in 1915 after see Germany do pretty good, Serbia about to collapse and the Ottoman Empire securing it's Eastern flank. Did not like Russia OTL and was an ally of AH. Many PoDs can change this but it is a toss up leaning Germany/Russia. What happens if it went with them? See Romania OTL.

~Britain will be shitting it's pants and will do everything possible to to keep the balance of power. This means Japan (who it went alone against 9 years ago and LOST), Afghanistan, Ottoman Empire in Allies on day 1 with possibly a BEC in AH. This means a four front war for Russia which is around as bad as AH.

~The Ottoman Empire's OTL position was like AH ITL - fighting at least two fronts. Considering it's circumstances, the OE did very well and is certain to win against Russia here (being heavily supplied by the Brits)

~Why would Germany ally with Russia over it's fellow German brother nation to the south? Let us assume that it goes towards this German-Russian curb stomp of AH/France that is suggested with all the details many seem to ignore. What does Russia have to gain from this? Galicia from AH? What does Germany gain from this? Everything. No, I don't see a Russian leader looking at this alliance with much to gain - Galicia and a bigger Bulgaria (popular PoD) to leave itself alone with Pax Germanica in Europe.

Germany went with AH for a reason as did France with Russia. There seems to be a double standard that OMG AH WILL FAIL!!111 while everyone on the Russo-German side does well - a wank seen over and over in these TL.
 
Last edited:
No, and neither would France.
A Russo-German Alliance would not need war to ensure that nobody in Continental Europe would seriously oppose their hegemony in this part of the world. The bloc is just too dominating.

This is not two superpowers armed with nuclear weapons. We have roughly 6 7ish great powers with strengths within each other's ballpark.
 
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=120715

This is pretty much a big thread of saying why the Russo-German Alliance can be beaten.

It can be beaten, but it is really unlikely. First, the stuff you posted does not make any sense. The AH army will suffer from desertion a lot more than either Germany, Russia or Italy will. (And, depending on the casus belli, it is very likely that Italy joins Germany and Russia from the very beginning. Italy is not run by "Naval Admirals", but by politicians who also have to listen to the Army and the population, both of which are hostile towards France and hellbent on destroying AH, the arch-enemy of Italy. So if there is any dim hope at the outbreak of war that Britain MIGHT stay neutral, or if Russia/Germany are the defenders [i.e. France declares war on them] and they have a defensive treaty, which is extremly likely, Italy will be with Germany/russia from day one.
And there is not a snowballs chance in hell that ALL Balkans nations will ally with the Entente to beat some faraway countries they have no claims against and no quarrels with. Serbia might have been an Austrian vassall pre Balkan wars in OTL, but the Serbian population HATES AH with all their guts and I think that it is extremly likely that emotion will prevail and Serbia breaks free and backstabs AH once the war start. Romania also hates AH, and the desire to recover Transsylvania was the key point of Romanian involvement in WWI in OTL, Bessarabia does not even remotely compare. And the pro-AH king did do squat in OTL to prevent Romania declaring war on it. And if you asked any early 20th century Romanian, what was more important to him, recover Transsylvania or help the French, the answer would be clear. I admit that if Serbia and Romania are allied with Germany/Russia, that Bulgaria might join the Entente, which once more boosts Romanian loyalty towards Germany/russia. And if by some miracle Serbia/romania are not on the German/Russian side, then Bulgaria will be, since then they can gain Ottoman, Serbian or Romanian lands, as opposed to squat when they are allied to all of them. To put it simple, all Balkan states on one side makes no sense whatsoever.
 
It can be beaten, but it is really unlikely. First, the stuff you posted does not make any sense. The AH army will suffer from desertion a lot more than either Germany, Russia or Italy will. (And, depending on the casus belli, it is very likely that Italy joins Germany and Russia from the very beginning. Italy is not run by "Naval Admirals", but by politicians who also have to listen to the Army and the population, both of which are hostile towards France and hellbent on destroying AH, the arch-enemy of Italy. So if there is any dim hope at the outbreak of war that Britain MIGHT stay neutral, or if Russia/Germany are the defenders [i.e. France declares war on them] and they have a defensive treaty, which is extremly likely, Italy will be with Germany/russia from day one.
And there is not a snowballs chance in hell that ALL Balkans nations will ally with the Entente to beat some faraway countries they have no claims against and no quarrels with. Serbia might have been an Austrian vassall pre Balkan wars in OTL, but the Serbian population HATES AH with all their guts and I think that it is extremly likely that emotion will prevail and Serbia breaks free and backstabs AH once the war start. Romania also hates AH, and the desire to recover Transsylvania was the key point of Romanian involvement in WWI in OTL, Bessarabia does not even remotely compare. And the pro-AH king did do squat in OTL to prevent Romania declaring war on it. And if you asked any early 20th century Romanian, what was more important to him, recover Transsylvania or help the French, the answer would be clear. I admit that if Serbia and Romania are allied with Germany/Russia, that Bulgaria might join the Entente, which once more boosts Romanian loyalty towards Germany/russia. And if by some miracle Serbia/romania are not on the German/Russian side, then Bulgaria will be, since then they can gain Ottoman, Serbian or Romanian lands, as opposed to squat when they are allied to all of them. To put it simple, all Balkan states on one side makes no sense whatsoever.

I think we both mean the same thing for the 2nd then - I hope I did not suggest that all the Balkan states will go on one side, as I was hoping to disprove that all the Balkan states will not gang pile AH like some would hope.

For the 1st part, you are more right on Romania but Italy will still be in a difficult position as Italy is completely blockaded, save neutral Switzerland, and will be in no position to do much with such limited railroad if the politicians are smart. OTL Italy fought one (1) front against AH, supplied by both the French and Britain and even then was heavily pushed back, it's position being completely isolated will be worse.

Keep in mind the following that Bulgaria's populace was wasn't too friendly with the Ottomans while Italy was anti-AH but also pro-German with an Anglophile king. How did that turn out?
 
Umm, no. I said invading Iran from India (with logistics handled by shipping on the Persian Gulf) is as difficult as invading Iran from Central Asia (with logistics handled by shipping across the Caspian). Invading India from Central Asia using Iran as a springboard is so difficult as to be impossible and completely incomparable....plus a whole bunch of other stuff

Wow. Are you just opposing fro the sake of opposing?


I can't be bothered with this. By the way, the Soviets main invasion was from the Caucasus, not Central Asia as you seem to think. Only one force (out of the 3 sets used) came from Central Asia and that only went from Turkmenistan along the Caspian coast to link up with the main force coming from Azerbaijan.

xchen08 said:
Wait, wait. You are now going with no U.S. in the counter alliance either? Clearly, you've completely left the discussion of whether a German-Russian and to be more exact a Nazi-Soviet alliance is unbeatable and into the realm of whether a handwaved German-Russian alliance of your creation is unbeatable by a handwaved counter alliance of your creation specifically crafted so it could not win. I mean, that's not worth much discussion even in its own thread, much less in a thread of whether Gerussia is unbeatable.

Again, you really aren't paying attention. Unlike you, I prefer to discuss the dynamics of the POD from the point of the POD forward. So there won't be any US in the counter-alliance unless there is a reason for the US to be in the counter-alliance. I can't think of any reason other than unrestricted submarine warfare as to why the US would be in any counter-alliance in the 1910s and if the POD is post-1933 I can't see any reason that any Russo-German/Nazi-Soviet alliance would bring the US into active opposition against it unless such an alliance included Japan and Japan got things rolling in the Pacific as in OTL. Even then if Japan were in an alliance with Germany, Italy and the USSR their reason for starting a general Pacific War might be butterflied away. If you can provide a reason for the Russo-German alliance to start a war with the USA in 1914 or 1939 or some other reason for the US to join up early (and thus before Britain and France end up negotiating for an end to war) then please share it.
 
Last edited:
I can't be bothered with this. By the way, the Soviets main invasion was from the Caucasus, not Central Asia as you seem to think. Only one force (out of the 3 sets used) came from Central Asia and that only went from Turkmenistan along the Caspian coast to link up with the main force coming from Azerbaijan.

What was that you said about opposing for the sake of opposing? Curious how you now make my position on the importance of Caspian shipping and the utter impossibility of invading India from the USSR and its incomparability with invading Iran from India even stronger.

Again, you really aren't paying attention. Unlike you, I prefer to discuss the dynamics of the POD from the point of the POD forward. So there won't be any US in the counter-alliance unless there is a reason for the US to be in the counter-alliance.

About the business of paying attention, I've noticed that you've lost track of this quite early on, but this thread is on whether a Russo German alliance is unbeatable. There is no specific POD and you are welcome to start a new thread with a specific POD, which I notice you've not actually presented.

I can't think of any reason other than unrestricted submarine warfare as to why the US would be in any counter-alliance in the 1910s and if the POD is post-1933 I can't see any reason that any Russo-German/Nazi-Soviet alliance would bring the US into active opposition against it unless such an alliance included Japan and Japan got things rolling in the Pacific as in OTL. Even then if Japan were in an alliance with Germany, Italy and the USSR their reason for starting a general Pacific War might be butterflied away. If you can provide a reason for the Russo-German alliance to start a war with the USA in 1914 or 1939 or some other reason for the US to join up early (and thus before Britain and France end up negotiating for an end to war) then please share it.

So, you've brought up USW, good. (talk about own goal) I don't really need to point to anything else in a thread about unbeatability, but it's curious how you aren't aware that the U.S. is not particularly interested in allowing totalitarians control over Eurasia, which would be why it was preparing for WWII long before Pearl Harbor, and it was aimed at Germany. Or that the U.S. was already moving towards war with its undeclared naval war against Germany and active intervention was only a matter of time.
 
I heard a very interesting radio programme last night about Halford Mackinder and his Heartland Theory: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00n4fpk .

The Heartland Theory argued that Russia and its border countries formed an impregnable fortress in Eurasia. In the 1920s and 1930s, the German geopolitician, Karl Haushofer, argued that Germany should form a grand alliance with Russia and Japan in order to dominate the Heartland.
 
What was that you said about opposing for the sake of opposing? Curious how you now make my position on the importance of Caspian shipping and the utter impossibility of invading India from the USSR and its incomparability with invading Iran from India even stronger.



About the business of paying attention, I've noticed that you've lost track of this quite early on, but this thread is on whether a Russo German alliance is unbeatable. There is no specific POD and you are welcome to start a new thread with a specific POD, which I notice you've not actually presented.



So, you've brought up USW, good. (talk about own goal) I don't really need to point to anything else in a thread about unbeatability, but it's curious how you aren't aware that the U.S. is not particularly interested in allowing totalitarians control over Eurasia, which would be why it was preparing for WWII long before Pearl Harbor, and it was aimed at Germany. Or that the U.S. was already moving towards war with its undeclared naval war against Germany and active intervention was only a matter of time.

Do you delight in only reading the bits that you can actually respond to? It's obvious that you don't want to have a discussion or display a modicum of manners. The thread itself long since acknowledged that nukes can beat a Russo-German alliance so why are you harping on about "don't really need to point to anything else in a thread about unbeatability"? As if that wasn't already acknowledged :rolleyes: You seem to have forgotten that threads can evolve and this thread has since evolved into discussions about whether naval power without major land allies or nukes could beat said alliance. But I guess you can't be bothered to follow that.

And if the US wasn't interested in allowing totalitarian control over Eurasia, why on earth did it allow this to happen between 1919 and 1941? My points were that the US entered both wars due to specific events which may or may not be replicated in an alternate world with a Russo-German alliance. For instance the US entered WWI in 1917. The opening post asked about 1914. If a Russo-German alliance goes up against Britain-France-Austria/Hungary in 1914 who is to say they wouldn't defeat France and Austria-Hungary before 1917 and have Britain come to terms? If that happened why then would the US enter if unrestricted submarine warfare is no longer occurring due to the war having...you know..ended? In 1939-1941 the US preparations were aimed at war with Germany in the New World, but were also just as much aimed at Japan if not more so. I've already pointed out that depending on what happens between Japan and a Russo-German alliance there may never be any Pearl Harbour attack to get the US involved, which could mean that by 1946 (when the tungsten is supposed to run out) Britain remains undefeated as does the Russo-German alliance and the war ends with peace negotiations.

I no longer expect any serious answers from you with regards to the questions I raised since I notice now that you have been avoiding them and instead make assumptions like having unrestricted submarine warfare continue indefinitely until the US enters or that the US would enter WWII after more than a decade of isolationism without any specific provocation. You don't have to waste both our times by responding since this thread has grown tiring and I definitely don't have time to waste in a discussion like what this one has become.
 
Wow. My somewhat tangential point about naval power has sorta exploded.

To be clear, I don't think naval power alone wins wars. I simply pointed out that typically, the power which seized naval superiority was the power to ultimately win the war, and that "typically" changes to "almost certainly" anytime the war involves combatants that are separated by water.

The main reasons for this, I think, are two-fold: 1)Building a giant navy requires a degree of industrial and financing power that come to bear in many ways, not just naval 2)Naval superiority provides strategic flexibility - that is, the ability to attack on overwhelming force at the point of the attacker's choosing, and to support the initial bridgehead with artillery support that cannot really be countered.

My point wasn't that the United States Navy could defeat any combination of land-based powers, but rather that the fact that the Allies established naval superiority is largely the tool that enabled them to win historically, and that fact is borne out in almost every major intercontinental conflict. Even though logic would dictate eternal stalemate between a power superior at sea and a power superior on land, that has rarely been the case, with the naval power usually winning out in the end. See, e.g., the Napoleonic Wars, WW1, and WW2.
 
The thread itself long since acknowledged that nukes can beat a Russo-German alliance so why are you harping on about "don't really need to point to anything else in a thread about unbeatability"? As if that wasn't already acknowledged :rolleyes:

Indeed. What has not been acknowledged is that even barring nukes, the Russo-German alliance still is not unbeatable, you know what you state immediately after.

You seem to have forgotten that threads can evolve and this thread has since evolved into discussions about whether naval power without major land allies or nukes could beat said alliance. But I guess you can't be bothered to follow that.

Right. Which I guess is why you are actually arguing that there exist specific alliances (notably not including the U.S.) that could not beat a Russo-German alliance despite having naval superiority. Curious how that works. Either you actually think that's the same as what you stated above, or you have been talking to yourself in your own little strawmanland, which I guess would explain a lot.

And if the US wasn't interested in allowing totalitarian control over Eurasia, why on earth did it allow this to happen between 1919 and 1941? My points were that the US entered both wars due to specific events which may or may not be replicated in an alternate world with a Russo-German alliance.

How then do you explain the massive American military buildup starting 1940 including Army buildup which would be singularly useless in defending the Western Hemisphere? Or the fact that the USN was already in a shooting war with Germany across half the Atlantic? Or are you going to brush away the fact that 60% of the American public agreed that the U.S. must deal with Hitler before Pearl Harbor, and the steady acts by FDR both leading up to this, and making use of it?

I've already pointed out that depending on what happens between Japan and a Russo-German alliance there may never be any Pearl Harbour attack to get the US involved, which could mean that by 1946 (when the tungsten is supposed to run out) Britain remains undefeated as does the Russo-German alliance and the war ends with peace negotiations.

Right, and I've already pointed that U.S. entry in the war was a foregone conclusion by 1941, and the idea that without PH, the U.S. would magically stay out is untenable. And also more to the point for this thread, all I need argue is that it is possible for the U.S. to intervene with or without Pearl Harbor, unless, yet again, you've been arguing to yourself on an unrelated topic that nobody is interested in here.

I no longer expect any serious answers from you with regards to the questions I raised since I notice now that you have been avoiding them and instead make assumptions like having unrestricted submarine warfare continue indefinitely until the US enters or that the US would enter WWII after more than a decade of isolationism without any specific provocation. You don't have to waste both our times by responding since this thread has grown tiring and I definitely don't have time to waste in a discussion like what this one has become.

I must say, I love how classy it is to unilaterally declare victory and the last word when you find yourself unable to continue rational debate. I wonder if someone so classy could actually stick to his word now that he does not, in fact, have the last word.
 
Last edited:
Germany and Russia are the most populous nations in Europe and are both extremely powerful. Britain and France got lucky that the two of them went at it TWICE in which ensured German defeat.

Say they decide to work together in either WWI or WWII. After all, Germany's main problem was France (Alsace-Lorraine) and Russia's main problem was Britain (the Great Game) so an alliance could easy be formed in both wars on a "I scratch your back if you scratch mine" deal.

Is there any way a coalition of countries could beat the alliance if the wars start in 1914 and 1939 as OTL?

A coalition that could beat them in 1914: France, Britain, Italy, Austria, Balkan States, Ottoman Empire, China, United States, and Japan. Russia would still be as bad as they were in the Great War (allying with Germany doesn't make them suddenly any better), which means Japan would invade Vladivostok and likely easily reach Irkutsk with Franco-British help (just like in the 1918-1922 Foreign Interventionary Period in Russia.) Germany would have a massive front exposed by having Austria on the other side. Another thing: the Russians and the Germans used different gauge railways, which the Germans replaced with standard European gauge in 1917 in the occupied territories. With no occupation, this would require a shift in trains for everything crossing the border. The Ottomans advanced well into the Caucasus while fighting the British, French (later), and the Arab Revolt in Mesopotamia and the Levant. So with Franco-Italo-British help, they would be able to easily punch through Armenia. The Triple Entente and allies might try to start a Menshevik Revolution in Russia to tople the Czar and leave Germany alone against everyone.

Also, Germany and Russia would probably not help each other at all on their respective fronts, like the Allies did. They don't really like each other (look at the occupation measures in 1917-1918, expecially sanitation), and their territorial ambitions are in conflict. Russia's bad military state would probably be quickly obvious. Imagine a Germany having to support Austria throughout the war, but 5 times worse.

If the Allies could get a revolution in Central Asia going (there was already the Basmachi Revolt in 1917) with promises of a "Greater Turkish Homeland", you can expect the Islamists as well as the independence fighters to be on the side of the Allies. Remember, Britain can directly support them from India, so there is another major problem for Russia, on top of its numerous others.

The Allies would still rule the seas (U-boats would be only menace, and they weren't as major a factor as in WWII.) Expect the North Sea Blockade again. There might also be something like the Gallipoli Campaign (but not the failure guaranteed part) in Murmansk.

In short, the Russians were not really good enough to hold off their major national issues until the war ended, the territorial ambitions of Germany and Russia clashed too much, the Germans would have had a massive southern front, the Allies would have attacked Russia from East Asia, expect a similar stalemate on the Western Front, and the Ottomans would probably have driven up through the Caucasus.
 
Top