Political Crossfire Forums

[thundertaker]

Or did it merely accelerate the process?

Personally, I believe in the case of the European theatre, it was only a matter of time before the "Russian Steamroller" would have told against the Nazis in the wake of Stalingrad. In the Pacific theatre, there is more room for debate, although even then I can't imagine the Japanese ever being able to conquer and hold all of China and India......

[mendosan]

Britain would have fallen or surrendered without American loans, food, and munitions. US Navy ships protected British merchant shipping (which kept Britain from starving) and fired on German subs well before the US declaration of war on Germany.

The British could not have won in North Africa without the US sending troops and the battles fought by General Patton. With German control of Egypt and the entire Mediterranean Turkey would have been forced to join the war on Germany's side as would have fascist Spain.

Without the US led Invasion of Italy the German forces manning the Teutonic line (theses troops were the last German troops to surrender in 1945) could have been free to fight the Russians.

Also a significant amount of soviet equipment was manufactured by the US also significant quantities of canned food for the Red Army. So without the US there would have been more troops free on the Eastern Front so I think the Germans would have won the entire war

[Dr. Righteous]

mendosan wrote: Britain would have fallen or surrendered without American loans, food, and munitions. US Navy ships protected British merchant shipping (which kept Britain from starving) and fired on German subs well before the US declaration of war on Germany.

The British could not have won in North Africa without the US sending troops and the battles fought by General Patton. With German control of Egypt and the entire Mediterranean Turkey would have been forced to join the war on Germany's side as would have fascist Spain.

Without the US led Invasion of Italy the German forces manning the Teutonic line (theses troops were the last German troops to surrender in 1945) could have been free to fight the Russians.

Also a significant amount of soviet equipment was manufactured by the US also significant quantities of canned food for the Red Army. So without the US there would have been more troops free on the Eastern Front so I think the Germans would have won the entire war

Very possible. However, I don't see the Germans conquering Russia, nor the Russians able to defeat the Axis powers by themselves. Russia just had too many people and Stalin would never have given up his power to Hitler.

It could be that we would have Japan, Italy, Germany, and Russia as evil superpowers if the U.S. hadn't gotten involved during WW2.

[antonio62]

mendosan wrote: Britain would have fallen or surrendered without American loans, food, and munitions. US Navy ships protected British merchant shipping (which kept Britain from starving) and fired on German subs well before the US declaration of war on Germany.

The battle of Britain was won only two months after lend lese started. It had minimal if any effect on the outcome of the Battle of Britain. This meant Germany could not invade Britain. Even if they did invade it is beleived the British defences would have held.

Quote: The British could not have won in North Africa without the US sending troops and the battles fought by General Patton. With German control of Egypt and the entire Mediterranean Turkey would have been forced to join the war on Germany's side as would have fascist Spain.

American troops only came to Africa a few months before the end of the African campgain. Sure they sped up the end but weren't decisive.

Quote: Without the US led Invasion of Italy the German forces manning the Teutonic line (theses troops were the last German troops to surrender in 1945) could have been free to fight the Russians.

Firstly it wasn't a US led invasion it was joint invasion by the British Comenwealth and the Americans. I also am pretty sure the majority of the troops were British and Comenwealth. Secondly if they had fought the Russians they would have been destroyed. The Russians destroyed 90% of German forces not to mention the troops from other Axis nations which it fought and destroyed.

Quote: Also a significant amount of soviet equipment was manufactured by the US also significant quantities of canned food for the Red Army. So without the US there would have been more troops free on the Eastern Front so I think the Germans would have won the entire war

Actually no very little of Soviet equipment came from America. Russia actually outproduced America on most equipment. Most of the aid Russia received was British actually.

[mendosan]

Quote: The Russians destroyed 90% of German forces not to mention the troops from other Axis nations which it fought and destroyed.

The Russian winter destroyed the Germans and there capacity to fight not the red army its important to note that.

Quote: Russia actually outproduced America on most equipment.

Every figure I have ever seen says the opposite apart from tank production, you must have seen pictures of Russian soldiers US made Tommy guns and the like.

www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weapons_and_manpower.htm

As for the Battle of Britain stuff I would say that you were right but that Britain could not have continued to fight without US food imports and war loans Britain would have been forced to sue for peace freeing hundreds of German division from Norway, France and Italy. [/quote]

[mathurin]

i can agree with the "sped the process" idea, however by speeding the process the US actually raised the chances of success, the new weapons germany was developing could have won the war, or at least caused a stalemate, but they were too little too late because of the acceleration of the process, while i am not sure about russian supplies, i know much of the allies used US equipment, right into korea and french forces in vietnam were using US manufactured weapons, the british had some of their own weapons, but i know they used US tanks and other heavy equipment, we were wary of giving US equipment to the russians because we didnt like communists

we armed much of the chinese against japan, and the US basically owned the lead in the island hopping campaign, sure the ANZACs cleaned up, but only after we left the japanese to starve for awhile

while the US was not battle hardened, the troops in africa at very least slowed and/or stopped the germans in flight from the british, letting the british whup them much quicker


if i picked the country that had the most effect it would prolly be russia, which is fair because it was their under the table agreement with germany to split poland that allowed germany to begin its hostilities
also, opening new lines was delayed because the more russians that the germans killed, the less the allies would have to someday...
i have been told gy a russian that germany attacked russia because hitler saw the large mass of troops and tanks stalin had on the border, and knew somehow that stalin intended to wait for the fascists and others to beat each other down before he rolled over all of europe, but who knows

honestly, i dont think the war could have been won without any one of the allies, except maybe the already occupied countries, so while i cannot make the nationalistic claim that america won the war, i do claim that it could not have been won without us, and that we could not have won without most of our allies, it was truly a team effort

[antonio62]

mendosan wrote: The Russian winter destroyed the Germans and there capacity to fight not the red army its important to note that.

It helped but it wasn't decisive.

Quote: Every figure I have ever seen says the opposite apart from tank production, you must have seen pictures of Russian soldiers US made Tommy guns and the like.

www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weapons_and_manpower.htm

Russia also produced more mortors and artilerry. The Russians were only given military trucks in any great numbers. These only really sped up the end of the war. Russia would have won without them.

Quote: As for the Battle of Britain stuff I would say that you were right but that Britain could not have continued to fight without US food imports and war loans Britain would have been forced to sue for peace freeing hundreds of German division from Norway, France and Italy.

Britain wasn't that in need of food. It was far worse during the first world war.

[mendosan]

In my opinion and it only my opinion the Russian winter was the decisive factor in halting the German advance they just weren't prepared for it

[Simon De Montfort]

Without the US navy German subs would have shut down Britains convoy life lines. Britain would have been starved into submission.

Without US supply shipments to Russia Russia would have been defeated by Germany.

Without US daylight bombing raids the Luftwaffe would have never declined in strength.

Without the US Italy would have never been invaded. Thereby keeping Italy in the war.

With out the US offensive in the Pacific Austrailia, New Zealand and India would have been overrun. I'm not sure but Japan may have felt secure enought to attack Russia drawing off Russian resource for the war with Germany.

Without the US the Axis would have won.

Without either UK or the US the Axis would have won. Without Russia the Axis would not have won but neither would they have been defeated.

[mendosan]

The point about Italy is a good one, If it had 3-4 more years of development its military power would have grown substantially.

[antonio62]

Simon De Montfort wrote: Without the US navy German subs would have shut down Britains convoy life lines. Britain would have been starved into submission.

We seemed to be doing ok before the US got involved.

Quote: Without US supply shipments to Russia Russia would have been defeated by Germany.

These were very slight in context and most aid for Russia came from the UK.

Quote: Without US daylight bombing raids the Luftwaffe would have never declined in strength.

The Luftwaffe could never have won even without the US.


Quote: Without the US Italy would have never been invaded. Thereby keeping Italy in the war.

Italy being involved or not made no real difference to the war.

Quote: With out the US offensive in the Pacific Austrailia, New Zealand and India would have been overrun. I'm not sure but Japan may have felt secure enought to attack Russia drawing off Russian resource for the war with Germany.

Russia had already beaten Japan. Although America were obviously the decisive power in the Pacific I don't think Japan had the ability to overrun India, Australia and New Zealand. They didn't have the industrial base or the manpower to do that.



Quote: Without either UK or the US the Axis would have won. Without Russia the Axis would not have won but neither would they have been defeated.

Russia destroyed 90% of German forces if thats not decisive I don't know what is.

[superskippy]

Without the threat of a real invasion from the West, at least 1,500,000-2,000,000 German soldiers could have been deployed from France, Italy, the Balkans etc, to the Eastern Front, more important than the troops, is the fact that they could bring their stockpiles of munitions and fuel with them.

With an extra 1,500,000-2,000,000 men and a full array of weapons, ammunition, and all other sorts of supplies, and taking into account the fierce German defense with the raggid troops they did have, such as the Oder crossings, I think it is assumable that if around 200,000 troops of various types such as militia, airmen, non combat personal, and remnants of the divisions from the Eastern Front could stall the entire Soviet offensive and inflict nearly 200,000 casulties with almost no ammunition for artillary and terrible stocks of supplies.

Imagine what a full strength group of armies numbered at lets say 1,500,000 with massive amounts of supplies could do.

I'd think that they could have probaby halted the attack either in a less likely chance on the fringes of Russia, or more likely in Poland, and hunkered down and battered the Soviet attacks.

[Jehan]

Russia was the big player of the Allies when it came to winning the war, despite what most Americans think.

[Swandazi]

Germany would have had more troops to spare to the eastern front if it wasnt for america, japan didnt have many strong enemys in the pacific so they would have gone unchallenged their with out america,


So, America did win ww2...

[Jehan]

Swandazi wrote: Germany would have had more troops to spare to the eastern front if it wasnt for america, japan didnt have many strong enemys in the pacific so they would have gone unchallenged their with out america,


So, America did win ww2...

Russia would have b****-smacked Germany either way, but it would have taken longer and they would have the entire continent. As for Japan, the US was the big one, but Britain and China did a lot of fighting too.

[superskippy]

Now, now, I dont think Russia would have steamrolled over Germany if there hadnt been a threat of invasion from the west, since if their was no threat of major invasion they could redeploy around 1,500,000 men to the Eastern Front, and hunker down along their defensive lines in Poland and the fringes of Russia.

If they had no other major theatre they could have steadily and easily reinforced and resupplied their troops on the Eastern Front, rather then having to spread it around, and they would have a very open and secure supply and industry zone in France and Italy.

I think that without American intervention and thus Hitlers great fear of a major invasion from the West, he could have deployed enough troops to the East to anchor along the Vistula at the very least, if not farther east.

I think those troops especially if put under adequite command and the fact that instead of the massive long front, they would have had a much shorter front and a much denser defense of the area.

With this in mind I'd propose that it would be more than possible for the Germans to hold the Russians back to a stalemate in Poland. Especially considering the fact that they did it temporarily with the ramshackle pieces of the Wermacht and Volksturm, and non combat personal, and rather wastefully with airmen in 1945, with a fully equipped army with a total of probably more than 2,500,000 men (All the redeployed troops, and the Wermacht troops from the Eastern Front), I propose that it would be very possible for them to achieve a stablization of their front and maul the Soviets sufficiently to make a stalemate.

This is why I love debating the alternate possabilities of World War 2 and other wars, there are just so many variables and possabilities that debating it can be so very interesting. I'm curious to see what you think with of my thoughts.

[Jehan]

The Germans may have been able to hold out for a while, but they would eventually fall. Quite simply, the USSR could turn out goods much faster, had more oil and more soldiers. War of attrition, USSR wins.

[Fido]

thundertaker wrote: Or did it merely accelerate the process?

Personally, I believe in the case of the European theatre, it was only a matter of time before the "Russian Steamroller" would have told against the Nazis in the wake of Stalingrad. In the Pacific theatre, there is more room for debate, although even then I can't imagine the Japanese ever being able to conquer and hold all of China and India......

It is difficult to say we won the war since we pissed so much of what we gained fighting the next war. I Just finished a book about Stillwell and China, and Chiang Kie Chek was only saving energy to fight the communists. His mis government with our support barely occupied the Japanese, took a great deal of resources for which he would not fight and he came close to losing all of China that he controlled. The anti communist nuts in the Republican party threw away the potential friendship of the communists, and brought on the war with them in Korea and in Vietnam, and caused pain through out the area. So did we even win in having to become such fast friends of the Japanese rather than making friends with the reds?
Did we win in Germany when we had to throw so much behind the new Germany at the expense of justice for Nazis? We had a deal with the Russians not to devalue the Riechmark, an act that precipitated the Berlin blockade. In almost every sense we cheered Hitler when we believed communists were his sole enemy. Is it some kind of honor to beat a man you helped to put in power by the fear of communism? We brought that war onto ourselves with our single minded stupidity on both ends of the world. How can we say we won and a cost of sixty million lives. The Chinese are right: Winning means not fighting.

[antonio62]

superskippy wrote: Now, now, I dont think Russia would have steamrolled over Germany if there hadnt been a threat of invasion from the west, since if their was no threat of major invasion they could redeploy around 1,500,000 men to the Eastern Front, and hunker down along their defensive lines in Poland and the fringes of Russia.

If they had no other major theatre they could have steadily and easily reinforced and resupplied their troops on the Eastern Front, rather then having to spread it around, and they would have a very open and secure supply and industry zone in France and Italy.

I think that without American intervention and thus Hitlers great fear of a major invasion from the West, he could have deployed enough troops to the East to anchor along the Vistula at the very least, if not farther east.

I think those troops especially if put under adequite command and the fact that instead of the massive long front, they would have had a much shorter front and a much denser defense of the area.

With this in mind I'd propose that it would be more than possible for the Germans to hold the Russians back to a stalemate in Poland. Especially considering the fact that they did it temporarily with the ramshackle pieces of the Wermacht and Volksturm, and non combat personal, and rather wastefully with airmen in 1945, with a fully equipped army with a total of probably more than 2,500,000 men (All the redeployed troops, and the Wermacht troops from the Eastern Front), I propose that it would be very possible for them to achieve a stablization of their front and maul the Soviets sufficiently to make a stalemate.

This is why I love debating the alternate possabilities of World War 2 and other wars, there are just so many variables and possabilities that debating it can be so very interesting. I'm curious to see what you think with of my thoughts.

Russia destroyed 90% of German forces. I cant see the extra 10% making that much difference. I also think Britain and the other comenwealth country's could have oppened up a front in France or Italy probably not both but that wouldn't be out of the question. Not as early as we did it with American help but it still could have happened.

[mendosan]

Where does this 90% figure come from and how long did it take(how many were killed in POW camps after 1945). also you have to bear in mind that Britain and its Armed Forces were s**t during most of the war, and without open sea lanes how could ANZAC's, Canadian and Indian Commonwealth Forces have got to Britain to open a second front, I think you need to look at the war in a global context to understand the European Theater.