Originally posted by utherpendragon You're forgetting about Mexico. Surely they would have stepped up to the plate and defeated the Axis Powers.
The tricky part would be sailing all their burro's overseas.
All they would have needed to do was to tell the Mexicans that there was a large cocaine stash in Hitlers bunker. He would have been overthrown in a week!! 😛
Richard Overy, professor of contemporary history at King's College London, notes that after the war, Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop listed three main reasons for Germany's defeat:
Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union
The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend-lease agreement
The success of the Western Allies in the struggle for air supremacy.
Mr Overy says that for decades Soviet historians underplayed the significance of US and UK lend-lease in the Soviet Union's success, but that Russia has recently shown just appreciation.
Mr Falin, however, says Russians never forgot the help they received from their allies.
"You ask any Soviet person, whether he remembers what a Dodge or a Willis is!" he says.
Originally posted by utherpendragon [/b]Richard Overy, professor of contemporary history at King's College London, notes that after the war, Hitler's foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop listed three main reasons for Germany's defeat:
Unexpectedly stubborn resistance from the Soviet Union
The large-scale supply of arms and equipment from the US to the Soviet Union, under the lend- rs what a Dodge or a Willis is!" he says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4508901.stm
There's no question American Lend-Lease helped the other allies including the Soviets. But I do not regard it as decisive; the Soviets could have lost with it or won without it.
Originally posted by no1marauder There's no question American Lend-Lease helped the other allies including the Soviets. But I do not regard it as decisive; the Soviets could have lost with it or won without it.
Recently there was a similar discussion on another forum I frequent, but this one is wargaming forum with a whole lot more knowledge about the subject. The general consensus there was the same, lend-lease was a significant factor, but not decisive, the Soviets could have won without it. Either of the big 2 would have won World War II without the other, but whether or not they would have liked it.
Uther: Interviewing a Nazi on the reasons of their defeat might not give the most honest answer. They still had the whole 'untermenschen' thing going on, so they'd much rather say that they lost because of the Western Allies than admit they were beat because of the inferior Communist Russians. Now, I'd actually agree that the 3 reasons listed were factors, but there is no way that the 2 other reasons were as important as the Eastern front.
Originally posted by Barts Recently there was a similar discussion on another forum I frequent, but this one is wargaming forum with a whole lot more knowledge about the subject. The general consensus there was the same, lend-lease was a significant factor, but not decisive, the Soviets could have won without it. Either of the big 2 would have won World War II without the other, but whe ...[text shortened]... actors, but there is no way that the 2 other reasons were as important as the Eastern front.
Uther: Interviewing a Nazi on the reasons of their defeat might not give the most honest answer. They still had the whole 'untermenschen' thing going on, so they'd much rather say that they lost because of the Western Allies than admit they were beat because of the inferior Communist Russians. Now, I'd actually agree that the 3 reasons listed were factors, but there is no way that the 2 other reasons were as important as the Eastern front.
Point taken.
Without the Allies help I can see the Soviets defending their homeland and fighting off the Germans as they did. Launching an offensive and "taking" Germany, no way.
That being said, if Hitler was a little more of a "General" and less of a nutty egomaniac ,ideologue,Germany had the ways and means to defeat the Soviets with proper planning.
Originally posted by utherpendragon [quote]Uther: Interviewing a Nazi on the reasons of their defeat might not give the most honest answer. They still had the whole 'untermenschen' thing going on, so they'd much rather say that they lost because of the Western Allies than admit they were beat because of the inferior Communist Russians. Now, I'd actually agree that the 3 reasons listed w ...[text shortened]... ac ,ideologue,Germany had the ways and means to defeat the Soviets with proper planning.
And if Stalin hadn't been smart enough to make much of the Soviet industrial power in Europe transportable to East of the Urals and paranoid enough to insist on leaving the Russian rail gauge different from Europe's the Nazis may very well have won as well.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi without a western front, all the nazis go east
Well there is still a British-French western front.
My opinion has long been that any two of the Big Three Allies could have taken the Axis. What the British Empire lacked in raw power they made up for with their vast naval and imperial experience, diplomatic skill, worldwide strategic experience, etc.
Hitler and Japan were just trying to be like the Brits...
Originally posted by avalanchethecat That's rather good.
There's a WWI one too. Look at the link where the artist is shown below.
I can't tell who those two little countries between Germany/Austria and Canada are in the strip just below where Great Britain puts on his war 'stache. Can you?
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Well there is still a British-French western front.
My opinion has long been that any two of the Big Three Allies could have taken the Axis. What the British Empire lacked in raw power they made up for with their vast naval and imperial experience, diplomatic skill, worldwide strategic experience, etc.
Hitler and Japan were just trying to be like the Brits...
Some here continue to ignore that Japan was already involved in a land war in China that required the vast majority of their land forces. And that regardless of whether the US existed, the Nazis had to garrison their occupied territories almost all of which had organized armed resistance movements.
It's not as simple as Germany + Japan v. USSR + Great Britain (+ its empire).
Originally posted by no1marauder Some here continue to ignore that Japan was already involved in a land war in China that required the vast majority of their land forces. And that regardless of whether the US existed, the Nazis had to garrison their occupied territories almost all of which had organized armed resistance movements.
It's not as simple as Germany + Japan v. USSR + Great Britain (+ its empire).
I take that into account, though I didn't mention it explicitly. I was hinting at that when I refer to the British strategic and diplomatic skill. Their Empire fought for them; the Axis Empires fought against them. They lacked Strategic Tolerance as Amy Chua labels it; their ethnocentrism meant they could not utilize the human resources of their Empires efficiently and therefore those resources turned against them to a much greater degree (and the youth of these Empires meant this was much more dramatic).
Originally posted by whodey All they would have needed to do was to tell the Mexicans that there was a large cocaine stash in Hitlers bunker. He would have been overthrown in a week!! 😛
Yes! If they could sell those drugs to Americans like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Of course, they better move fast because Glenn and Rush will be storming the nearest machine-gun nest stripped to the waist chugging Red Bull while chomping down on a mouthful of Viagra tablets! Say whodey! How do you manage to lug those heavy ammo boxes?
Originally posted by Barts Recently there was a similar discussion on another forum I frequent, but this one is wargaming forum with a whole lot more knowledge about the subject. The general consensus there was the same, lend-lease was a significant factor, but not decisive, the Soviets could have won without it. Either of the big 2 would have won World War II without the other, but whe ...[text shortened]... actors, but there is no way that the 2 other reasons were as important as the Eastern front.
That's especially true of von Ribbentrop who was all together an ignorant fellow of mediocre intelligence.
To the main point, it's impossible to know if the Russians would have held out without Allied support. Yes, in retrospect they were strong enough to do so. But wars aren't fought in retrospect. As it is, they were fairly close to losing the war in 1941 and could have still lost it (No1's protestations notwithstanding) in 1942. Which straw would have broke the camel's back is impossible to say, but it was a close thing and there were many straws that would have been added without Allied help.
The more I think about it the more I think that the Axis win the war without the United States. Starting with the Pacific. The Japanese would be able to concentrate their naval and air forces against the British Empire. Most likely they lose control over India, Australia, and New Zealand as a result in addition to Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. This is a severe loss in manpower and raw materials to the Brits. Think how many Aussies, Kiwis, and Indians fought in North Africa for the Brits against Rommell. The Japanese Navy stops this flow of manpower cold.
Regarding the Soviet Union. I think it's possible that they hang on and reach stalemate with Germany losing the Ukraine, Baltic States, and Belorussia in the process. I don't believe they would have been able to launch the massive offensives against Germany post 1942 without the aid of lend lease and the distraction to Germany over the additional fronts opened in North Africa, Italy, and then finally France. Lend Lease is underestimated. 2/3rds of the Soviet Army's trucking capabilities came from Lend Lease without this and second front they don't have the mobility to roll back the Germany army. Trucking was critical since the Soviet rail system was inadequate. Not to mention the huge amount of food and raw materials sent via Lend Lease.
I also believe that an alliance between Churchill and Stalin would have been much more prickly and difficult to maintain had Roosevelt not been involved in the discussions.
The only hope in favor of the allies IMO is Hitler's irrationality. There's a good chance he would have found a way to lose anyhow.
Let's also not forget other factors such as the strategic bombing of Germany's industrial capacity being greatly reduced due to the loss of American bombers. Correct me if I'm wrong also but without the US would not Germany have had the lead in development of the atom bomb. Surely with more time they could have further developed this as well as other weaponry such as jet aircraft.
But most likely scenario for me is Great Britian sues for peace after losing most of it's empire including Egypt (due to lack of manpower from Aus/NZ/India) but maintains it's home base. Soviet Union fights tooth and nail to a stalement but loses it's control over most of Eastern Europe. 1000 year Reich lasts quite a bit longer than 1945.
Originally posted by Ullr The more I think about it the more I think that the Axis win the war without the United States. Starting with the Pacific. The Japanese would be able to concentrate their naval and air forces against the British Empire. Most likely they lose control over India, Australia, and New Zealand as a result in addition to Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. This is a severe ...[text shortened]... ntrol over most of Eastern Europe. 1000 year Reich lasts quite a bit longer than 1945.
The Japanese certainly didn't have sufficient ground forces to capture India while the vast bulk of their army was tied up in China. Australia and New Zealand perhaps but they were well defended.
The Soviets had received a paltry half million dollars worth of aid by the time they rolled back the Germans in front of Moscow. That was certainly a "massive offensive" on the scale of the 1942 ones. The loss of the trucks would have inhibited the mechanization of a lot of rifle corps and made the Soviets somewhat less maneuverable, but their major blows were based on artillery and tanks (plus their huge manpower reserves) little of which was received from the US. I still think the tide would have turned in their favor by 1943.
I can't see Great Britain suing for peace absent a credible threat of invasion of the Home Isles that didn't exist after Barbarossa.
24 Oct '10 23:22
YouTube
A Different WWII...
Back to Top