NationStates Jolt Archive

Although we'd entered the war, D-Day didnt occor until 1944, which was when Germany actually began hitting setbacks...
Bullshit. After Kursk (in 1943, if you didn't know), the Germans were royally screwed, full stop. We only invaded on D-Day to stop Western Europe falling under the USSR's control.

I refer to my earlier statement about Stalingrad, in which although we'd entered the war, America didnt factor against Germany until 1944...
...

Right, so what was your point again?
And as far as the Empire is concerned, although they could have beaten the Germans in those fronts, im saying that they werent logistically able to factor into an actual invasion of Germany on their own...
We could simply have waited it out until the Germans wasted more and more of their troops fighting the Russians and then simply invaded Italy (as I'm sure you're aware, the Italians were an utter pisstake in WW2) and gone up through Austria (which would have taken ages, but we'd probably have won in the end).

By 1946-ish, it's all over, and we celebrate with the tradition Anglo-Soviet dish of vodka and crumpets.

Bullshit. After Kursk (in 1943, if you didn't know), the Germans were royally screwed, full stop. We only invaded on D-Day to stop Western Europe falling under the USSR's control.

Yep, the reason the US entered the war was to stop The Soviet Union from taking over Europe....right, and im the Crackpot, lol...

But, the reason they were 'royally screwed' was because they werent able to commit their full force, but, in a war where there was no US involvement, Germany could isolate the UK and hit the USSR full force, and i dont see the Soviets taking on a Fresh German Army that hadnt endured a bitter Russian Winter...

You provided a theory.

Any letters from the Nazis to London?

Any note of telegrams from one to the other?

I'm still working on it, I've remember where I heard that info, it was on a show about WWII (obviously) on History International...

...

Right, so what was your point again?

We could simply have waited it out until the Germans wasted more and more of their troops fighting the Russians and then simply invaded Italy (as I'm sure you're aware, the Italians were an utter pisstake in WW2) and gone up through Austria (which would have taken ages, but we'd probably have won in the end).

By 1946-ish, it's all over, and we celebrate with the tradition Anglo-Soviet dish of vodka and crumpets.

Thats a possibility, im not saying it couldnt be done, i just dont think thats very likely, being that that plan assumes the same number of Germans were available in all fronts...

I'm still working on it, I've remember where I heard that info, it was on a show about WWII (obviously) on History International...

I think your thinking of what i was quoting with Rudolf Hess and Prince George, it was the show on HI, and was about a Conspiracy Theory...

That may or may not be it, but, i think thats what your thinking of...

Not really. Rommel lost in North Africa because the American army landed massive amounts of troops. Rommel would have had more time to fight Monty and deal some major blows. The Italians would have also had more time to land reinforcements. Eventually Rommel would be forced to retreat because Hitler refused to give him reinforcements. Vichy France would be ever more coopertive and Spain might join the Axis and throw their military into the fray. The Brits would never had made the attack in sicily because they didn't have the manpower to. If they did they would have been pushed back by the many Panzer divisions and knocked out temporarily. Hitler needed to be a little more generous to Rommel and the Brits would have lost.

You provided a theory.

Any letters from the Nazis to London?

Any note of telegrams from one to the other?

Some more evidence; check the 04/07/1941 entry

http://www.worldwar-2.net/timelines/war-in-europe/war-in-britain/war-in-britain-index-1941.htm

...

Right, so what was your point again?

We could simply have waited it out until the Germans wasted more and more of their troops fighting the Russians and then simply invaded Italy (as I'm sure you're aware, the Italians were an utter pisstake in WW2) and gone up through Austria (which would have taken ages, but we'd probably have won in the end).

By 1946-ish, it's all over, and we celebrate with the tradition Anglo-Soviet dish of vodka and crumpets.

And just to clarify that point, I dont think the USSR could have won against Germany without the US-led D-Day...

I think your thinking of what i was quoting with Rudolf Hess and Prince George, it was the show on HI, and was about a Conspiracy Theory...

That may or may not be it, but, i think thats what your thinking of...

I don't watch shows about Conspiracy theories, however, the Rudolph Hess bit might have been what they based it off of, if I can't find anything concrete I'll concede my point.

I don't watch shows about Conspiracy theories, however, the Rudolph Hess bit might have been what they based it off of, if I can't find anything concrete I'll concede my point.

Probably a good idea.

Don't want to make yourself look like the President of Iran...

And just to clarify that point, I dont think the USSR could have won against Germany without the US-led D-Day...

That's where you fail, by 1944 the allies had pounded Germany so much that there was no real way for the Germans to stop the juggernaut that was the Soviet Union's western forces.

Yep, the reason the US entered the war was to stop The Soviet Union from taking over Europe....right, and im the Crackpot, lol...
Damn right.

The only reason we launched D-Day was to get to Germany and France before the Russians did - we tried our damnedest, but they got into Germany before us, which led to the creation of the DDR and all that.
But, the reason they were 'royally screwed' was because they werent able to commit their full force, but, in a war where there was no US involvement, Germany could isolate the UK and hit the USSR full force, and i dont see the Soviets taking on a Fresh German Army that hadnt endured a bitter Russian Winter...
Right, right.

Quite how could the Germans isolate the UK?

Build a new navy somehow? No. They didn't have the remotest chance of doing so, nor was Hitler really into that kind of thing.

By air? No. The Luftwaffe was a spent force by late 1943, and the RAF and Russian Air Force were getting better and better as the war progressed.

With U-Boots? No. The Land Army was working pretty well by 1942-ish, and we could send supplies into the UK through the Suez Canal and Med if the need was there after we utterly crippled the Italian Navy at Taranto.

The UK simply could not be starved.

And just to clarify that point, I dont think the USSR could have won against Germany without the US-led D-Day...

Pfft, the German Army was waaay over extended. The inclusion of America into the war only sped up the process of the war ending. Once Hitler had attacked Russia, it was all but a sealed deal. Not that it mattered because Stalin and Hitler did not trust one another one iota and Stalin would have attacked Germany sooner than later anyway.
Russia had vast superiority in numbers. They had more men, more resources and more weapons. yes, they were crude compared to German equipment, but the Germans complicated machines gave the troops issues in the field. One little thing goes wrong with a tank and it is useless. :mp5:

The UK simply could not be starved.

Sorry but I must disagree there. The Rations had fewer calories than the amount recognised as a good number of Calories to sustain a person.

The Diet was appalling. We Won because we were near starving. Hunger drives people on.

And after the War it got worse.

Damn right.

The only reason we launched D-Day was to get to Germany and France before the Russians did - we tried our damnedest, but they got into Germany before us, which led to the creation of the DDR and all that.

Right, right.

Quite how could the Germans isolate the UK?

Build a new navy somehow? No. They didn't have the remotest chance of doing so, nor was Hitler really into that kind of thing.

By air? No. The Luftwaffe was a spent force by late 1943, and the RAF and Russian Air Force were getting better and better as the war progressed.

With U-Boots? No. The Land Army was working pretty well by 1942-ish, and we could send supplies into the UK through the Suez Canal and Med if the need was there after we utterly crippled the Italian Navy at Taranto.

The UK simply could not be starved.

Im not saying Starve them, im saying Contain them, keep them from landing their military in France, which could be done with what Germany had left in the west, and without Hitler having to pull troops from Africa and the USSR, i believe they eventually wouldve been successful in those areas, and would free up those battle hardened troops for a more prolonged siege and possible invasion of Castle Brittania

EDIT: and to Pedorrificiness, thats exactly my point, without D-Day the Germans wouldnt have to over-extend their forces,and a fully equipped, and rested German Army would ultimately have been too much for the USSR...

Probably a good idea.

Don't want to make yourself look like the President of Iran...

I actually am going to concede the point now, the show made no mention of Hess so I trusted the info, but since the only other 'concrete' mention I've found is a bit about the British Communist Party dropping pushing for a separate peace.

In any case, the search itself was interesting, and I do not mind admitting my mistakes.




I still stand by my statement that without any U.S. involvement (and some better choices by the Germans) they could have defeated the British.

And, as a side note, without the Patton led invasion of Sicily, Italy would have been able to contribute much more to the war, meaning its 2v1 in Africa, and with an Italian victory in Africa, the Italians could possibly factor in the USSR and the UK...

Damn right.

The only reason we launched D-Day was to get to Germany and France before the Russians did - we tried our damnedest, but they got into Germany before us, which led to the creation of the DDR and all that.

The second half of your sentence is blatantly untrue. Our advance from the beaches of Normandy in June of 1944 to Torgau (where the eventual linkup of the Americans and the Soviets took place) in April of 1945 was very slow and methodical. It was Churchill who was constantly ignored in his warnings that all that was going to take place in the territories that the Allies did not control was the simple replacement of one dictatorship by another.

It was NEVER Eisenhower's intention to capture most of Germany to stop the Russians from doing so - our armies were sitting and twiddling their thumbs waiting for the drive on Berlin which never came. Eisenhower was never concerned with the political ambitions of Stalin, certainly much less than he was on wrapping the war up on the already declared enemy.

The Soviets would have won the war, regardless of the D-Day landings. 8/10 Germans killed in the Wehrmacht fell at the hands of the Russians and the Russians alone. Germany could not stop and out-match Russia's sheer numbers. Read 'Panzer Leader' by Heinz Guderian or "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer to gain a better view on this. There would be multiple situations where German panzers would pick off russian tanks from 1,000 meters (well out of the russian tank range) only to be eventually surrounded because they could not shoot the swarm that overtook them.

The second half of your sentence is blatantly untrue. Our advance from the beaches of Normandy in June of 1944 to Torgau (where the eventual linkup of the Americans and the Soviets took place) in April of 1945 was very slow and methodical. It was Churchill who was constantly ignored in his warnings that all that was going to take place in the territories that the Allies did not control was the simple replacement of one dictatorship by another.

It was NEVER Eisenhower's intention to capture most of Germany to stop the Russians from doing so - our armies were sitting and twiddling their thumbs waiting for the drive on Berlin which never came. Eisenhower was never concerned with the political ambitions of Stalin, certainly much less than he was on wrapping the war up on the already declared enemy.

The Soviets would have won the war, regardless of the D-Day landings. 8/10 Germans killed in the Wehrmacht fell at the hands of the Russians and the Russians alone. Germany could not stop and out-match Russia's sheer numbers. Read 'Panzer Leader' by Heinz Guderian or "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer to gain a better view on this. There would be multiple situations where German panzers would pick off russian tanks from 1,000 meters (well out of the russian tank range) only to be eventually surrounded because they could not shoot the swarm that overtook them.

Thats true, but, im saying a Germany that didnt have to deal with Normandy, wouldve been better able to counter the Russians Numbers, of course they couldnt match it, but, when you free up more Panzers, and German Troops, then the swarm could possibly have been slowed, or pushed back...

But, those things happened After Stalingrad anyway, im saying without the shift in troops to France, Stalingrad couldve been taken and possibly gone on to Moscow...

And just to clarify that point, I dont think the USSR could have won against Germany without the US-led D-Day...
Yes, well you're wrong there.

Let's take a look at Bagration, for example. The Germans started off with around 800,000 men, and the Russians with roughly 1.7 million. This is a large numerical difference, granted, but the casualty figures tell the real picture.

The Russians lost about 60,000 of those men killed and another 100,000ish wounded or ill. The Germans lost 400,000 men killed, wounded, MIA or captured.

This is a Big Difference in Numbers. Would this have happened without D-Day? Yes. The Russians might have taken more casualties, but the progress made by the Russian army groups in the south of Russia and to the north, too, led to Army Group Centre being pretty much encircled by the start of June 1944. Before D-Day actually began.

With such a massive loss in manpower, and the growing momentum of Russian forces, the game was really pretty much up for the Germans a long time before D-Day began.

Thats true, but, im saying a Germany that didnt have to deal with Normandy, wouldve been better able to counter the Russians Numbers, of course they couldnt match it, but, when you free up more Panzers, and German Troops, then the swarm could possibly have been slowed, or pushed back...

Slowed, maybe...
Pushed back, no the Russian numbers were too overwhelming

Thats true, but, im saying a Germany that didnt have to deal with Normandy, wouldve been better able to counter the Russians Numbers, of course they couldnt match it, but, when you free up more Panzers, and German Troops, then the swarm could possibly have been slowed, or pushed back...

But, those things happened After Stalingrad anyway, im saying without the shift in troops to France, Stalingrad couldve been taken and possibly gone on to Moscow...

just to make sure my comment about Stalingrad was read...

I guess the new debate makes this thread pointless, because the UK's fate is linked to that of the Soviets anyway, so the real question is could the Germans and Italians have taken on the USSR while containing the UK without the Invasion of Normandy....

Sorry but I must disagree there. The Rations had fewer calories than the amount recognised as a good number of Calories to sustain a person.

The Diet was appalling. We Won because we were near starving. Hunger drives people on.

And after the War it got worse.
We weren't going to starve to death.
Im not saying Starve them, im saying Contain them, keep them from landing their military in France, which could be done with what Germany had left in the west, and without Hitler having to pull troops from Africa and the USSR, i believe they eventually wouldve been successful in those areas, and would free up those battle hardened troops for a more prolonged siege and possible invasion of Castle Brittania
Hitler was really out of Africa by 1943. I don't think you really know what you're on about here.
EDIT: and to Pedorrificiness, thats exactly my point, without D-Day the Germans wouldnt have to over-extend their forces,and a fully equipped, and rested German Army would ultimately have been too much for the USSR...
The Germans weren't going to be fully equipped or rested from 1942 onwards - the Allies were always bombing German factories, and the German Army was always somewhere in Europe on anti-Partisan duties (especially in Yugoslavia and the USSR), or helping out the Finnish, or whatever else.

They would have been overextended in Russia alone. Russia is huge. You cannot physically own and control that much land properly, especially not as an invading force.

I guess the new debate makes this thread pointless, because the UK's fate is linked to that of the Soviets anyway
Quite.
so the real question is could the Germans and Italians have taken on the USSR while containing the UK without the Invasion of Normandy....
No. The Italians sent some Alpini, which was a pretty poor effort, really, and the Germans couldn't own that much territory and hope to defend it.

We weren't going to starve to death.

Hitler was really out of Africa by 1943. I don't think you really know what you're on about here.

The Germans weren't going to be fully equipped or rested from 1942 onwards - the Allies were always bombing German factories, and the German Army was always somewhere in Europe on anti-Partisan duties (especially in Yugoslavia and the USSR), or helping out the Finnish, or whatever else.

They would have been overextended in Russia alone. Russia is huge. You cannot physically own and control that much land properly, especially not as an invading force.

Well, obviously Russia does it, but thats another point, I dont think The Allies, without US support, wouldve been able to bomb the German factories, and a UK thats contained in the island of Great Britain isnt going to be able to hit Finland, espeacially without US troops to hit Scandinavia with...

and on top of that, if you can win in Stalingrad and use it as a power base to hit Moscow, theres no need to occupy the rest of Russia...

If your going to invade say, the US, are you going to control New York and Chicago, or waste your time occupying backwoods Appalachia?...

Obviously the former, and if Germany is able to do that, then there's no need to occupy the rest of the country for its not much use, and without the factories in the USSR's major cities, whatevers left of Russia will eventually die of starvation, and/or, be unable continue to supply her troops...

And, as a side note, without the Patton led invasion of Sicily, Italy would have been able to contribute much more to the war, meaning its 2v1 in Africa, and with an Italian victory in Africa, the Italians could possibly factor in the USSR and the UK...
Wait, what?

The Italians were in a very weak position indeed. They lost most of their navy after Taranto, their army was a piece of piss and their people didn't want another pointless war after Abyssinia and the Spanish Civil War. They couldn't win in Africa, full stop. They didn't have the manpower to defeat the large British formations there at all.

Wait, what?

The Italians were in a very weak position indeed. They lost most of their navy after Taranto, their army was a piece of piss and their people didn't want another pointless war after Abyssinia and the Spanish Civil War. They couldn't win in Africa, full stop. They didn't have the manpower to defeat the large British formations there at all.

They couldnt win ON THEIR OWN, but, without Patton there's a strong possibility a Combined German/Italian force, under Rommel, couldve defeated the lone British force there

Well, obviously Russia does it, but thats another point, I dont think The Allies, without US support, wouldve been able to bomb the German factories
We were doing pretty OK, actually, the US just sped things up.
and a UK thats contained in the island of Great Britain isnt going to be able to hit Finland, espeacially without US troops to hit Scandinavia with...
... It was the Russians that were in Finland. The British weren't there, nor was the US.
and on top of that, if you can win in Stalingrad and use it as a power base to hit Moscow, theres no need to occupy the rest of Russia...
Stalingrad is quite a distance from Moscow, and if you know anything about the War of 1812, you'll know that the Russians could lose Moscow and still win, especially after they moved large amounts of their industry to sites behind the Ural mountains.
If your going to invade say, the US, are you going to control New York and Chicago, or waste your time occupying backwoods Appalachia?...
If you invade New York and Chicago and some cheeky bastard moves most of the factories to Appalachia, on the other hand, you've just wasted serious amounts of manpower, especially if the same cheeky chappies blow up the rail links there, as well as burning down the farms in a 300 mile radius, just to really take the piss.
Obviously the former, and if Germany is able to do that, then there's no need to occupy the rest of the country for its not much use
There's a lot of space which the Russians could have used even if Moscow was taken.
and without the factories in the USSR's major cities
They were in the Urals by late 1941.
whatevers left of Russia will eventually die of starvation, and/or, be unable continue to supply her troops...
Nah, they'd be able to hold out.

They couldnt win ON THEIR OWN, but, without Patton there's a strong possibility a Combined German/Italian force, under Rommel, couldve defeated the lone British force there
Nah, we had seriously vast reserves in the native populations of sub-Saharan Africa which, if you'll remember correctly, we owned.

Yeah, that would have been unpopular, but there was a war on.

We were doing pretty OK, actually, the US just sped things up.

... It was the Russians that were in Finland. The British weren't there, nor was the US.

Stalingrad is quite a distance from Moscow, and if you know anything about the War of 1812, you'll know that the Russians could lose Moscow and still win, especially after they moved large amounts of their industry to sites behind the Ural mountains.

If you invade New York and Chicago and some cheeky bastard moves most of the factories to Appalachia, on the other hand, you've just wasted serious amounts of manpower, especially if the same cheeky chappies blow up the rail links there, as well as burning down the farms in a 300 mile radius, just to really take the piss.

There's a lot of space which the Russians could have used even if Moscow was taken.

They were in the Urals by late 1941.

Nah, they'd be able to hold out.

Yep, cause you can just pick up entire Buildings and move them into other parts of the Country, especially after theyve been blown to bits...

And i was saying that if Russia loses Stalingrad then the only ones able to hit Scandinavia are the UK and the US, and without American troops Britain would have a tough time doing that...

Nah, we had seriously vast reserves in the native populations of sub-Saharan Africa which, if you'll remember correctly, we owned.

Yeah, that would have been unpopular, but there was a war on.

And thats assuming that the Obviously Overtly Loyal Subjects to the Crown that are all over the African Desert are willing to fight for you, i just dont see that happening, especially without much support from actual British, and being that Rommel could easily have beaten Monty had Patton not arrived with American reinforcements, i dont think there would really be allot of British support in the first place...

I would like to remind you all Britain was starving. They hated the people starving them.

I would like to remind you all Britain was starving. They hated the people starving them.

True, but that has no bearing if they cant leave the island...or to the Saharans for that matter...

True, but that has no bearing if they cant leave the island...or to the Saharans for that matter...

Yes it does. Angry Hungry People fight to the death, they have nothing to loose. That's why Britain carried on.

Yes it does. Angry Hungry People fight to the death, they have nothing to loose. That's why Britain carried on.

Yeah, but if they cant shoot at the people their trying to fight to the death then it doesnt matter...And if they are starving that assumes that eventually they can be starved out...

Yeah, but if they cant shoot at the people their trying to fight to the death then it doesnt matter...And if they are starving that assumes that eventually they can be starved out...

Dover and Calais are within range of each other. The Royal Navy Still functioned. The British Empire still functioned.

Wait, what?

The Italians were in a very weak position indeed. They lost most of their navy after Taranto, their army was a piece of piss and their people didn't want another pointless war after Abyssinia and the Spanish Civil War. They couldn't win in Africa, full stop. They didn't have the manpower to defeat the large British formations there at all.


Actually thats not true. The Italian Army in North Africa was actually pretty good. When Rommel cammanded them he was wondering why everyone thought the Italians were weak. It was the Italian leadership that weakend the Italians. The leaders were not as well experienced as Rommel, Guidarian, or most other generals for that matter. When commanded by a German general though they fought exceptionly well. It was the Italian navy that kept the Crete invasion alive. They protected the German supply boats so they could get to Crete. One destroyer actually fought off a British naval force and air power while defending those ships. The only problem with the Italians was they had untrained leaders, unpopularity with the war, and not supplied with anything to get their army mobile. They weren't the best army on the field but they could fight for themselves.

Dover and Calais are within range of each other. The Royal Navy Still functioned. The British Empire still functioned.

Yeah but the question is how long would it Function without US Money and Supplies...

Plus, you can shoot at Calais all you want, and it may piss the fuck out of the Germans, but it doesnt do any real damage to them, only an actual invasion will hurt Germany

Yep, cause you can just pick up entire Buildings and move them into other parts of the Country, especially after theyve been blown to bits...
Obviously you know nothing of what the Russians called Tankograd, which was the name given to Chelyabinsk in World War 2, after they moved the machinery from massive factories such as Obukhovsy Plant in St. Petersburg to produce tanks (mainly) as well as other weapons to help them win the war.

They picked Chelyabinsk because it was a decent-sized town behind the Urals and hence out of range of most German bomber flights, and basically used it to pump out T-34s as quickly as possible to the front lines.
And i was saying that if Russia loses Stalingrad then the only ones able to hit Scandinavia are the UK and the US, and without American troops Britain would have a tough time doing that...
Stalingrad is more than a thousand miles away from Finland, and under the control of a completely different Army Group at the time, I don't see what you're getting at here.

Yeah but the question is how long would it Function without US Money and Supplies...

Plus, you can shoot at Calais all you want, and it may piss the fuck out of the Germans, but it doesnt do any real damage to them, only an actual invasion will hurt Germany

Had the Colonies provided Conscripted troops and Built more ships etc the British Wouldn't have had to go near the US.

And thats assuming that the Obviously Overtly Loyal Subjects to the Crown that are all over the African Desert are willing to fight for you, i just dont see that happening, especially without much support from actual British
We would have just said to them "Mussolini likes to gas Africans, are you prepared to let that happen to you?" and a significant amount would probably say "bugger that".

Also, keep in mind that there were 3 fronts in Africa in which the British were fighting, and the Germans weren't at the East African front in any great numbers, which is why the British won there in about a year.
and being that Rommel could easily have beaten Monty had Patton not arrived with American reinforcements, i dont think there would really be allot of British support in the first place...
No, he couldn't.

He had hardly any supplies, regardless of US intervention, and the British were in control of the Middle East, which meant that he had serious trouble getting fuel.

Obviously you know nothing of what the Russians called Tankograd, which was the name given to Chelyabinsk in World War 2, after they moved the machinery from massive factories such as Obukhovsy Plant in St. Petersburg to produce tanks (mainly) as well as other weapons to help them win the war.

They picked Chelyabinsk because it was a decent-sized town behind the Urals and hence out of range of most German bomber flights, and basically used it to pump out T-34s as quickly as possible to the front lines.

Stalingrad is more than a thousand miles away from Finland, and under the control of a completely different Army Group at the time, I don't see what you're getting at here.

Im getting at the fact that if USSR loses Stalingrad, then the Army Group in Finland will have to reinforce them, and weaken, and/or end the war in Scandinavia...

But, thats what i think it comes down to, i think we can all agree that Stalingrad was the turning point of the war, had that gone differently, then i think the odds would be much more in Germany's favor...Im not saying Britain couldnt win, but i dont think it wouldve been as likely...

and as well, had Germany won that battle Tankograd would never have been allowed to take place,as those factories wouldve been pummeled when the Germans entered the other cities...

Germany was simply outnumbered. Russia was the deciding factor not the US, however, if the US did not lendlease to Britain - then Germany may have been able to mount a successful invasion of Britain. The Collapse of Britain would have meant the doom for the colonies - which Japan likely would have gobbled up, allowing more resources to be thrown into a war against Russia.

Although the axis was largely outnumbered during WWII

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

This wiki link really spells it out.

The soviet union outnumbered all other forces combined.

The US's main contrabution was in supplies to Britain, and the Invasion of Europe, and the Pacific Ocean Theatre, and China. They very much did contribute however, the difference would have been that Russia would have taken much greater losses, to acheive victory, and would have likely taken all of Germany, and maybe even Italy.

Actually thats not true. The Italian Army in North Africa was actually pretty good. When Rommel cammanded them he was wondering why everyone thought the Italians were weak. It was the Italian leadership that weakend the Italians. The leaders were not as well experienced as Rommel, Guidarian, or most other generals for that matter. When commanded by a German general though they fought exceptionly well. It was the Italian navy that kept the Crete invasion alive. They protected the German supply boats so they could get to Crete. One destroyer actually fought off a British naval force and air power while defending those ships. The only problem with the Italians was they had untrained leaders, unpopularity with the war, and not supplied with anything to get their army mobile. They weren't the best army on the field but they could fight for themselves.
Meh. The Italians lost East and nearly lost North Africa when it was just them fighting there - when the Germans arrived in North Africa, I would agree that the difference in leadership made a huge difference, but I'd personally see Italy as the weakest force in World War 2 apart from France.

Im getting at the fact that if USSR loses Stalingrad, then the Army Group in Finland will have to reinforce them, and weaken, and/or end the war in Scandinavia...
I don't really see why...
But, thats what i think it comes down to, i think we can all agree that Stalingrad was the turning point of the war, had that gone differently, then i think the odds would be much more in Germany's favor...Im not saying Britain couldnt win, but i dont think it wouldve been as likely...
I'm unsure about that one, to be quite honest. Stalingrad was Hitler's pet project, of little military value - Stalin is also fairly guilty of putting men into it for no good reason, but then he had more than twice as many people to lose.
and as well, had Germany won that battle Tankograd would never have been allowed to take place,as those factories wouldve been pummeled when the Germans entered the other cities...
Tankograd was from July 1941 onwards... that's AGES before Stalingrad.

Yeah, but if they cant shoot at the people their trying to fight to the death then it doesnt matter...And if they are starving that assumes that eventually they can be starved out...
Nah, they were just really very hungry without actually being on death's door, so to speak.

Meh. The Italians lost East and nearly lost North Africa when it was just them fighting there - when the Germans arrived in North Africa, I would agree that the difference in leadership made a huge difference, but I'd personally see Italy as the weakest force in World War 2 apart from France.

Once again. France was not the weakest by far. When Germany invaded the French army actually had better materials and everything like that. They had more tank and ships, but not planes.If the Germans had succesfully taken hold of the French fleet in Toulon, instead of the sailors scuttling the whole fleet, the Germans would have been able to nearly match the British in naval power. which would have pratically forced Hitler to invade Malta. The British airbase, and naval port there was a big problem.

Nah, they were just really very hungry without actually being on death's door, so to speak.

You've studied the second world war haven't you?
I can sense these things you know.
carry on

;) be afraid, well if you want to be, never really understood the imperative behind that one, meh.

England would still have won, because the germans would have been in grief over hitlers death. We had over all superiority

Once again. France was not the weakest by far. When Germany invaded the French army actually had better materials and everything like that. They had more tank and ships, but not planes.If the Germans had succesfully taken hold of the French fleet in Toulon, instead of the sailors scuttling the whole fleet, the Germans would have been able to nearly match the British in naval power. which would have pratically forced Hitler to invade Malta. The British airbase, and naval port there was a big problem.
In terms of actual arms, it was one of the best forces in Europe. On the other hand, it was the worst-performing army of any major country in World War 2, basically because it was poorly led, and whoever designed the Maginot Line forgot that Belgium existed (an easy mistake to make, but still...)

In terms of actual arms, it was one of the best forces in Europe. On the other hand, it was the worst-performing army of any major country in World War 2, basically because it was poorly led, and whoever designed the Maginot Line forgot that Belgium existed (an easy mistake to make, but still...)
They knew about it, they just couldn't afford extending it. Not just in terms of money (though that was a part of it) but also because already as it was the thing was tying down a huge proportion of the French army just to man it. Extending it to the coast was going to be a long term goal, but not one that could be realised at the time.

And because they knew that this might be where the Germans would come, the allied plan was to combine the free part of the French military with the British and Belgian forces, have the Dutch slow the German advance by destroying bridges and so on and then meet them in battle somewhere in Belgium. Unfortunately the Germans went way faster than expected and their main attack went through the mountains, where you normally wouldn't expect a tank army to be.

They knew about it, they just couldn't afford extending it. Not just in terms of money (though that was a part of it) but also because already as it was the thing was tying down a huge proportion of the French army just to man it. Extending it to the coast was going to be a long term goal, but not one that could be realised at the time.

And because they knew that this might be where the Germans would come, the allied plan was to combine the free part of the French military with the British and Belgian forces, have the Dutch slow the German advance by destroying bridges and so on and then meet them in battle somewhere in Belgium. Unfortunately the Germans went way faster than expected and their main attack went through the mountains, where you normally wouldn't expect a tank army to be.
Ah ok. I was unaware of the future plans for the Maginot line, thanks for explaining :)

A tad off topic, but Defense can't win a war, as if you defend, you never attack, and you never impede your opponent’s ability to make war on you.

I think Frederick II of Prussia would disagree with you. There is only so many people and so much material a group can send at you...

They knew about it, they just couldn't afford extending it. Not just in terms of money (though that was a part of it) but also because already as it was the thing was tying down a huge proportion of the French army just to man it. Extending it to the coast was going to be a long term goal, but not one that could be realised at the time.

And because they knew that this might be where the Germans would come, the allied plan was to combine the free part of the French military with the British and Belgian forces, have the Dutch slow the German advance by destroying bridges and so on and then meet them in battle somewhere in Belgium. Unfortunately the Germans went way faster than expected and their main attack went through the mountains, where you normally wouldn't expect a tank army to be.

There was also the political ramifications of building a large defensive construct along a border with a Country that was ostensibly an ally.

Germany was simply outnumbered. Russia was the deciding factor not the US, however, if the US did not lendlease to Britain - then Germany may have been able to mount a successful invasion of Britain. The Collapse of Britain would have meant the doom for the colonies - which Japan likely would have gobbled up, allowing more resources to be thrown into a war against Russia.

Although the axis was largely outnumbered during WWII

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

This wiki link really spells it out.

The soviet union outnumbered all other forces combined.

The US's main contrabution was in supplies to Britain, and the Invasion of Europe, and the Pacific Ocean Theatre, and China. They very much did contribute however, the difference would have been that Russia would have taken much greater losses, to acheive victory, and would have likely taken all of Germany, and maybe even Italy.

Don't forget supplying the Soviets also, with (for example) P-40 Warhawks...

In terms of actual arms, it was one of the best forces in Europe. On the other hand, it was the worst-performing army of any major country in World War 2, basically because it was poorly led, and whoever designed the Maginot Line forgot that Belgium existed (an easy mistake to make, but still...)

Not actually true, the plans for the Maginot line had it extending the entirety of the French border, they, however, were unwilling to risk offending their friendly nations by actually building it to the plans.



EDIT: also what Neu Leonstein said :)

They knew about it, they just couldn't afford extending it. Not just in terms of money (though that was a part of it) but also because already as it was the thing was tying down a huge proportion of the French army just to man it. Extending it to the coast was going to be a long term goal, but not one that could be realised at the time.

And because they knew that this might be where the Germans would come, the allied plan was to combine the free part of the French military with the British and Belgian forces, have the Dutch slow the German advance by destroying bridges and so on and then meet them in battle somewhere in Belgium. Unfortunately the Germans went way faster than expected and their main attack went through the mountains, where you normally wouldn't expect a tank army to be.

The German plan was to "make noise" in Holland, get the British expeditionary force and most of the free French forces not in the magginot line to be fighting in Belgium, then come through the Ardennes behind the Allies. The attack didn't go through the mountains. The ardennes was considered impassible for tanks. The top French general stated that the Ardennes was impassible if adiquetly defended. Those last words were forgotten and only a few calvary divisions were set up there. The majority of the French army was encircled and surrendered. The magginot line was still hard to take even though it was attacked from behind and with all time low moral due to the defeat. They still killed a great many Germans.

Nah, we had seriously vast reserves in the native populations of sub-Saharan Africa which, if you'll remember correctly, we owned.

The only reason the Afrika Corps eventually dissolved was due to lack of supply. Rommel's deployment to North Afrika was only to delay and contain British advance. He ended up running across the entire northern part of the continent for the better part of two times because the British did not know how to play the land warfare game. Tobruk was never captured because Rommel did not have the supplies to do it. He was pushed back twice (the second time permanently) as a result of his supply line being constantly harassed in the Mediterranean.

The Italians did well under German command, of this there can be no doubt. Their performance in Africa and Italy shows this. The only reason the landings at Anzio were successful was because of the power of the Allies ability to produce a mass abundance of war materiel. Kesselring and his nine divisions trying to take out the Anzio beachead (defended by three allied divisions) were only stopped because of overhwelming artillery and air support. It is the same story at Monte Cassino as it is marching across France; bomb the heck out of everything and advancement until you meet resistance, then bomb some more. Rinse, wash, & repeat.

Tit for tat, the general infantry of the German Wehrmacht were better trained and superior to ALL of their allied counterparts. What won the war for the Allies was a) sheer numbers, and b) better production. It is really as simple as that. The people who really 'owned' in the war were also the ones that lost it. Look at the kill/death ratios.

No, Churchill was way too fucking badass to let that happen.

No, Churchill was way too fucking badass to let that happen.

lol

Keep bombing the runways, they said...

No, Churchill was way too fucking badass to let that happen.
Hitler and Churchill fighting on a beach...

If the Wermacht had been allowed the leadership of their Generals, I believe it would have been a different story. Admiral Rader begged for more U-boats to starve Great Britain, but did not get them. He also kept arguing that the German navy was in no condition to attack and defeat the Royal Navy, which was the largest and most powerful at the time. Ok granted, the Bismark showed that it was more powerful than the HMS Hood, but nubmers eventually took care of the Bismark.

The Luftwaffe generals also harped that they did not have the proper air power to attack Great Britain, as they could not go past London; since their planes did not have the range. I believe it was Luftwaffe General Galland that wanted to attack the RAF bases and airfields until they were destroyed.
The Luftwaffe did not have the number of fighters needed to protect the bombers and to engage the RAF. The US tried the daylight bombing campaign without fighter escort, and got their behinds handed back to them on a plater.

And yes, Rommel kept asking for the resources he needed to do what he was ordered to.

Germany had some brilliant military leaders during WW-II. Just look at how their concept of the Blitzkreig was used by the then USSR during the cold war as their strategy, and was the refined version that was used during Gulf War I by Schwartzkopf. Bomb the crap out of them, destroy all their command and control, destroy their ability to provide air support, overwhelm them with numbers.

However, the brilliant strategic genious of Hitler, Goehring and others caused the demise of Germany. Their industry was not ever brought to a war time footing. Whereas the US went into full 24/7 production of war materials.

Also, the Generals were against a two front war. Kesselring and the others remembered what happened to Napoleon when he attacked Russia during the winter. The Wermacht wanted to attack and defeat Russia before they tried to attack the UK.

However, Hitler's strategic brilliance FUBAR'd the best laid plans of his generals.

The only problem that hit Napoleon was supplies. You may think supplies are not that important but most wars are won or lost due to production. Napoleon fought extremely well in Russia but the Russians burned their few crop feilds which Napoleon was hoping to use. Napoleons supplies slao didn't get as far as they should of alone. to make matters worst it was fricking cold.

Germany stalled their invasion of the USSR in order to help Ital in their Balkens campaign. He invaded Yugoslavia and Greece. And attacked Crete.

Crete lost Hitler the war.

During his time in the Balkens he could have taken out Malta. Without Malta The Royal Navy would have to have landed in Alexandria. Therfore giving much extended freedom of supplies to Rommel. The USSR was not ready for an attack because of Stalins purges. They were also demoralized during the Finnish-Russo war during the previous winter. The Finnish fought amazingly against the Russians. when the Germans attacked their estimated force was less than 50% effective than what they where going to be if the original attack was to happen. The Luffwaffe also wasn't expecting the long lasting campaign. More bombers needed to be sent to do long term air attacks and Russian production would have been destroyed. They also lost alot time before the harsh winter to come. If Germany,Italy,Hungary,Rumania,Bulgaria, and Finland attacked the USSR instead of a Balkens campaigne they would have taken Moscow, Stalingrad,Leningrad,Kiev,Kursk, and many more cities much faster and more efficiantly.

Hitler was getting rather desperate in regards to Britain by the time the USA joined WW2 the "stubborn little island" as he referred to it would have cost him a fortune to defeat, I think he may have given up for a bit and picked up the fight again later, but if he had defeated Britain the world would still be rebelling now, there's no way the rest of the world could have mounted an effective defence in time.

"Could Hitler have defeated the British?"

By himself, no. With Nazi Germany's military, maybe. ;)

Hitler was getting rather desperate in regards to Britain by the time the USA joined WW2 the "stubborn little island" as he referred to it would have cost him a fortune to defeat, I think he may have given up for a bit and picked up the fight again later, but if he had defeated Britain the world would still be rebelling now, there's no way the rest of the world could have mounted an effective defence in time.

If he wasn't a moron and would've continued attacking the RAF instead of firebombing London, then things probably would've taken a turn for the worst, even with American intervention.

"Could Hitler have defeated the British?"

By himself, no. With Nazi Germany's military, maybe. ;)

Wins the thread! :p:p:p

Wow 22 pages, the tl;dr factor is huge, and I only have one thing to say: alternate history debates fail.

Don't forget supplying the Soviets also, with (for example) P-40 Warhawks...

Indeed. Stalin himself said that the war could not have been won if not for the factories of Detriot.

This highlights an important point. American industry contributed far more to the war effort then American soldiers did. For example, the US produced about 300,000 aircraft in it's 3 and a half years of war. Compare that to Germany, which produced only 120,000 aircraft during the entire course of the war. Many of these were given to Britian, the Soviet Union etc via lend lease. The industrial output of the US outran the entire axis easily.

Industry won WWII.

Indeed. Stalin himself said that the war could not have been won if not for the factories of Detriot.

This highlights an important point. American industry contributed far more to the war effort then American soldiers did. For example, the US produced about 300,000 aircraft in it's 3 and a half years of war. Compare that to Germany, which produced only 120,000 aircraft during the entire course of the war. Many of these were given to Britian, the Soviet Union etc via lend lease. The industrial output of the US outran the entire axis easily.

Industry won WWII.

Industry wins most wars. The U.S. produced over 55,000 Sherman tanks during the war. More than twice all of the other German tanks combined. Not to metion stuarts, priests, chafees, Hellcats, Greyhounds, and Pershings. Plus many many more. Thats alot of tanks.

Wow 22 pages, the tl;dr factor is huge, and I only have one thing to say: alternate history debates fail.

No, Communism fails...


*runs*

I think Germany could have won, but more would have to be different than the United States not showing up.

England won the Battle of Britain; American aid wasn't necessary for that. That seemed to stop Germany for a while. Now, if Germany had continued to focus on England and didn't break it's non-aggression pact with the USSR, the island probably would have fallen: Germany was just bigger and better (from a militaristic standpoint).

When you consider that Britain was taking US aid long before it entered the war, not likely they would have survived without oil, food and weapons. Try to remember they only managed a stalemate in the Battle of Britain and did it with cloth planes. British air power was so weak that American forces had to do the daylight bombing and British pilots got to fly at night.

The royal family itself was in negotiations to surrender before America joined.

Industry wins most wars. The U.S. produced over 55,000 Sherman tanks during the war. More than twice all of the other German tanks combined. Not to metion stuarts, priests, chafees, Hellcats, Greyhounds, and Pershings. Plus many many more. Thats alot of tanks.

The U.S also had the advantage in have a contiguous construction, training, research and resource base, allowing all of its force to be concentrated (and reduce the distance between raw resources, refining systems and construction areas).

"Could Hitler have defeated the British?"

By himself, no. With Nazi Germany's military, maybe. ;)

I Love You! have my babies?

"Could Hitler have defeated the British?"

By himself, no. With Nazi Germany's military, maybe. ;)

He could have done it alone if his name was CHUCK NORRIS

On a more serious note, I think the primary debate here is the extent of America's extramilitary involvement. Could Britain/USSR have won without American economic assisance? Did a black hole drop on the United States in 1939?

I think the answer is no, nor do I think that britain could have stood up to the concentrated effort of the Nazi warmachine.

At it's height, Nazi Germany commanded over 300 divisions. By contrast, the Allied invasion of Europe was (combined British/American/Canadian forces) about 30 divisions. Hitler was cautious about launching an immediate counter attack during the invasion of Normandy because he figured that such a "small" detachment of men was a feint for a much larger invasion force.

Soviet Russia did do most of the fighting, that is true, but it was propped up entirely by American logistical support. For example: the Soviet military/industrial program was heavily dependent on locomotives for deploying military equipment. Of the 2073 locomotives that the Soviets used during WWII, only 92 were Russian built, the rest were American delivered. A full 2/3s of the Soviet Union's truck strength was from American trucks. Trucks during WWII were a critical factor in the war; you could have all the tanks in the world, but without the logistics to support them, your enemy is going to pick your force apart piece by piece (as the Nazis did in the early phases of the Eastern campaign). America produced more aircraft than any other nation in the world. It produced more bombers than England, Germany, Russia, Italy, and Japan combined. America contributed more than three times the crude oil of the rest of the world combined. America was also primarily responsible for providing food to the Soviet Union, providing nearly 5 million metric tons of food to Russia alone.

Could the world have won without the economic back bone provided by America? I seriously doubt it. If the Soviet Union had collapsed, the Nazis would have moved to consolidate their power on the continent, which probably would have included renewing plans to invade the British island. 300 divisions would have been virtually unresistable by Britain standing alone. Even wtih the United States, without the USSR to act as a bullet sponge for the nazi war machine, I doubt that the allies could have held off for very long.

The attack didn't go through the mountains. The ardennes was considered impassible for tanks. The top French general stated that the Ardennes was impassible if adiquetly defended.
Mountains is perhaps something of an overstatement, but this the river they crossed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Meuse%2C_in_the_french_ardennes.JPG

Those last words were forgotten and only a few calvary divisions were set up there.
Yeah, but at the actual Meuse the defences were quite strong. But as with the French military in general back then, they weren't expecting what was coming. They were expecting the Germans to bring in artillery support in order to try the crossing (and the German high command certainly demanded it from Guderian, who was in charge of the operation on the ground), but instead they just got the air force to bomb the shit out of the French position and gambling on speed rather than strength, they started getting dudes across the river in little boats. OKH was furious, expecting the troops on the other side to be encircled and destroyed, but instead no strong French counterattack followed and Guderian was able to race to Sedan. It should be noted that one of the most determined French leaders trying to push for the counterattack and slow down the Germans was Charles De Gaulle.

But once they reached Sedan, the rot somehow set in in the French army and that was almost the end of it right then and there.

The Muese river itself was defended was defended better than the rest of the Ardennes but still not enough. The Stukas came in and kept the heads of the French down by sending the planes in a few at a time strafing,bombing, or pretending to do either just so that the French guns wouldn't fire. The French Guns were great, and they had over 14,000 of them compared to Germany's 7,000, but they lacked the most important guns of all, anti-tank and anti-air guns. German airforces didn't have to fear ground fire because most French guns were designed to be infantry support. The Germans moved fast and swift because otherwise the guns would rain hell on them. and machine guns would chop them up.