How likely is a British-Nazi alliance in WW2?

>is
its not too late.. i can go back..

At that point there was really nothing that could be done within Britain's influence.

Churchill has gone on record multiple times saying his hopes were for the USSR and Germany to just kill each other in the war, and expected if the USSR were to win, they would be exhausted and near powerless to enforce control over Eastern Europe.

Instead the reverse happened, Britain was on the ropes and near bankrupt from the war effort, while the USSR became a juggernaut that drove its way to Berlin, an honestly shocking revelation at the time, as not many people expected the Red Army to be able to overcome the Wehrmacht and come out more powerful than when they started.

But there was nothing Britain or even the US could do to influence the USSR to back down from their positions, as no one wanted to start another war after just finishing 6 years of the most devastating war in history.

>Russia was stronger than Germany.

No it wasn't. The German economy and industry was larger than the Soviet economy and industry for the entire war bar 1945. Additionally, in 1939 everyone saw the Soviet Union as a shitty backwater that was weaker than it really was.

>Russia stronger than Germany
>US stronger than Germany

that's not how balance of power works. The goal was so that one nation is not more powerful than all others.

The USSR could be the strongest single power, but is unable to defeat Germany, France, Britain, and Italy combined.

Britain may be the strongest western power, but cannot overtake Germany, France and Russia all at once.

What Germany was threatening was a unipolar state on the European Continent, a Germany that could overtake Britain, France, and the USSR all at once, which was a direct threat to British interests as it upsets that balance of power mindset that one nation can't have it all.

>But there was nothing Britain or even the US could do to influence the USSR to back down from their positions, as no one wanted to start another war after just finishing 6 years of the most devastating war in history.

Some Brits planned for a war with the USSR but any miniscule chance of this getting through went from "tiny" to "impossible" when they figured out the US would respond with pic related.

That's why Operation Unthinkable was supposed to be a failure, not because of the USSR's supposed invincibility. It's all in the original document.

>They were a superpower for several centuries, despite being in deep shit at the beginning of the 20th century

Historically Russia was a great power but had never been a superpower. If we want to take about history, Russia's recent history at the time gave everyone reason to believe it was weak. Russia was an unstable, underdeveloped backwater that had just emerged out of a civil war and lost major wars to fucking Poland and Finland. The last major war it was involved in with another great power ended with the Germans stomping a mudhole in them and successfully invading and annexing much of their territory, despite the Germans focusing the majority of their resources on the west.

>confirmed for knowing nothing about WW2
The Soviet Union had fucking 200 million people compared to Germanys 80 million.

And no that doesn't mean: "What's the big deal? If every guy kills 3-4 then we can still win" like the retarded Germans thought. Life isn't a video game. It means that even if your 5 million guys through superhuman determination and willpower managed to kill a far bigger number like 10 million red army soldiers that still doesn't win you the war. Guess what? They can still use like 30 million new soldiers to fight against your exhausted and traumatized troops.

And no the industry wasn't larger. Hitler himself said that 1 soviet factory produced more tanks than all factories combined. In a famous speech with a Finnish general he said he couldn't even have imagined that a state could fight with 30 000 tanks.

60s USSR could systematically wipe out all of western europe

If we're talking about strength it goes like this:
Soviet Union > Russian empire > Modern Russia.

>despite the Germans focusing the majority of their resources on the west.
That's not even true. 70-80% of the troops were fighting in the East.
>Historically Russia was a great power but had never been a superpower.
The Russian empire was on par with Britain, the strongest empire on earth for some time... don't ask me when, but read about the great game, then it declined and became weak again. In 1900-1940 it was not a superpower. But it became one after WW2.

Just think about the stuff Russia got away with: helping Korea and Vietnam, dividing Germany, treating Eastern Europe like shit etc... why did they get away with it? Because they were a superpower. Similar to how the West can get away with stuff too like Iraq.

If any power weaker than Russia did this shit the West would have bombed them into oblivion like Germany and Japan. But Russia wasn't Germany and Japan. It was stronger than Germany and Japan. That's why it was regarded a superpower.

>The Soviet Union had fucking 200 million people compared to Germanys 80 million.

1. Much of that manpower wasn't actually usable. Due to being ethnic minorities unfriendly to the regime (especially the territories annexed after 1938). Meanwhile those 85 million of the Reich were pretty much entirely ethnic Germans. To be more accurate in comparison to the Soviet numbers you'd have to count all of the German occupied territories and puppet states/allies in that total.

2.

>le manpower maymay

Wow I guess China was the most powerful country in the world, followed by British India.

The number of warm bodies doesn't fucking matter in modern war. Industry does. And Germany had a stronger industry and far more resources than the USSR.

>And no the industry wasn't larger.

Per Harrison, Mark, "The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison":

German GDP 1941: 1,145 billion
Soviet GDP 1941: 359 billion

German Steel Production 1941-1944: 127 million tons
Soviet Steel Production 1941-1944: 45 million tons

German Iron Ore Production (whole war): 240 million tons
Soviet Iron Ore Production (whole war): 70.1 million tons

German Coal Production (whole war): 2,420 million tons
Soviet Coal Production (whole war): 590 million tons

Per historian Igor Kurtukov:

fat-yankey.livejournal.com/143255.html

Soviet artillery ammo expenditure 1942-1944: 2,275,252 million tons
German artillery ammo expenditure 1942-1944: 3,372,035 million tons

I can compare other resources like aluminum, factory workers, and refined fuel, but I think I've made my point well enough.

The US is the next better option for the britians.

>That's not even true. 70-80% of the troops were fighting in the East.

1. Not in WW1, where the West consistently took priority.
2. In fact, not in WW2 either. More like 60% of manpower, probably sub-50% of resources. Per Glantz's "When Titans Clashed": 20% of the Heer was arrayed east in 1940; 80% by mid 1941; 80% in 1942; 62% by mid 1943; 62% in 1944; and 60% in 1945. Meanwhile the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine consistently had the majority of their men and resources arrayed in the west for pretty much the entirety of the war, which is very significant; a single Type VII u-boat for example cost as much as a company of Panzer IVs.

>The Russian empire was on par with Britain, the strongest empire on earth for some time... don't ask me when, but read about the great game, then it declined and became weak again. In 1900-1940 it was not a superpower.

At the beginning of the 20th century Russia's GDP was a third the size of the British Empire's. They never really challenged Britain in the 19th century either. They were always a great power, not a superpower.

> Just think about the stuff Russia got away with: helping Korea and Vietnam, dividing Germany, treating Eastern Europe like shit etc... why did they get away with it? Because they were a superpower.

They had nukes (which didn't prevent them from running their economy into the ground).

Also, goalpost shifting, we're talking about pre-WW2.

> But Russia wasn't Germany and Japan. It was stronger than Germany and Japan. That's why it was regarded a superpower.

Again, Germany was in every a way a more powerful country than Russia/the USSR before WW2 and during most of it.

>and far more resources than the USSR.
Seriously? Just look at a damn map.
Then why did they import stuff from the USSR prior to the war? The entire reason why they invaded was because they LACKED resources and needed them and Russia had them.
>Wow I guess China was the most powerful country in the world, followed by British India.
Both of those countries were like 50 years behind Russia and 150 years behind the West. It's not even comparable.

I can't say anything about the numbers you mentioned, maybe they are even true but how do you explain that Russia had far more tanks, planes, guns etc... than Germany?

>How likely is a British-Nazi alliance in WW2?

If Germany and Britain got along there wouldn't have been a WW2. It's like asking what if George Washington teamed up with King George III to win the American Revolution.

>I can't say anything about the numbers you mentioned, maybe they are even true but how do you explain that Russia had far more tanks, planes, guns etc... than Germany?
I am not the another but in general, Germany equipment was more complex than soviet.

>Then why did they import stuff from the USSR prior to the war?

The same reason the USSR imported from Germany. Trade is pretty much always more profitable than protectionism.

> It's not even comparable

It's quite comparable. Manpower don't mean shit in modern war compared to industry.

> but how do you explain that Russia had far more tanks, planes, guns etc... than Germany?

Three reasons.

1. Lend-Lease enabled Russia to focus production on tanks, guns, etc. while Germany had to build "boring" shit like infrastructure, shipping, and trucks. 67% of the USSR's heavy-haul trucks came from Lend-Lease. 58% of high octane aviation fuel. 43% of garage facilities. Millions of tons of food. Tons of railway equipment, ships, machine tools, rolled steel, the list goes on.

2. Germany had more raw output than the USSR, but used it to build different things. As noted above, Germany outproduced the USSR in ammunition by a ridiculous amount (keep in mind that a large portion of that expended ordnance was Lend-Lease). They also had a significant navy while the USSR didn't, building 1,152 submarines. Type VII production alone reached 703, and one of those was more expensive than an ENTIRE COMPANY of tanks. They built tens of thousands of APCs/half-tracks while the Soviets built none. They built several battleships and heavy cruisers. Et cetera.

3. American and British bombing. To give just one example from " The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy", page 597. Starting from March 1943, 34,000 tons of bombs were dropped on the Ruhr over 5 months. Following the raids, steel production fell by 200,000t where Speer predicted their newest expansions should have resulted in a gain of 200,000 tons instead, making a shortfall of 400,000 tons. Another from page 598: the American raids on the Ruhr were severe enough that between July 1943 and March 1944, aircraft production didn't increase at all despite the aircraft production budget doubling.

>They were always a great power, not a superpower.

Except they were literally one of only three nations ever described as superpowers you colossal retard.

I thought it was fairly obvious I've been referring to them prior to the end of WW2 this entire time, and more specifically before WW2 to explain the psychology of people at the time in regards to them.